Sitting of 16 November 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  FIFE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    Refits (Clyde)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why out of the 22 Reserve Fleet ships, for which contracts have been entered into by his Department for refitting, only one of these vessels is to go to the Clyde.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): It is impossible to distribute orders for the refit of His Majesty's ships by contract evenly between the various areas concerned. Regard must be had to the types and sizes of the ships, their condition and location, the cost of towage involved, and the state of work in the yards available. On the present occasion, it was possible to allocate only one ship to the Clyde, but as the hon. and gallant Member is aware the volume of work sent to that area in the last 12 months has been substantial.
    Colonel Hutchison: Does that mean that the allocation of these vessels is in future to be governed by the state of unemployment or by the cost at which the vessels will be repaired, because there is plenty of vacant space available on the Clyde which is capable of taking a much higher proportion than a ratio of one in 22?
    Mr. Edwards: There is unemployment in the ship repairing industry in most
    1994
    parts of the country but that does not mean that we shall send ships to areas which have had the most unemployment.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the Clyde at the moment we have a great deal of unemployment for lack of repair work? Will my hon. Friend keep his eye on that position and see that we get our fair share of such work on the Clyde?
    Mr. Edwards: That is borne in mind. Of the total value of refits, excluding submarine refits, allocated to contracting firms during the last 12 months, 20 per cent. has gone to the Clyde.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Only one vessel out of more than 20 is to come to the Clyde where we have the greatest number of shipbuilders in Britain unemployed.
    Mr. Logan: Is my hon. Friend taking precautionary measures to see that there is not a glut of ships going to one particular place and that there is a fair allocation of repairs in relation to unemployment, especially on Merseyside?
    Mr. Edwards: That is borne in mind.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: Is attention paid to the fact that certain yards are capable of dealing with ships of a certain size and that if those yards do not get orders it means far more unemployment?
    Mr. Edwards: Attention is paid to that fact but I wish to inform the House that even this number of ships going out to contract cannot fill all the berths in the country.

    Aircraft Carrier, Hong Kong
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of aircraft carriers based at Hong Kong; and what armament the aircraft carry.
    Mr. W. Edwards: One aircraft carrier is based on Hong Kong. The aircraft with which she is equipped are capable of carrying cannon, rocket projectiles or bombs.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many aircraft are carried by this aircraft carrier, and does he think that there are sufficient aircraft in this vital area?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. and gallant Member will have to put that question down.

    Dartmoor Ranges (Cattle)
    Mr. Medlandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that Commando units from the Marine camps around Plymouth, operating on the Dartmoor ranges, have in the past three months shot and killed over 12 cattle and that many cattle and sheep are missing; and what action he is taking to prevent this loss of food.
    Mr. W. Edwards: No, Sir. As far as I am aware, the Royal Marines on Dartmoor have been responsible for the death of only one beast during the last three months. I am satisfied that the present precautions are reasonable in view of all the circumstances.
    Mr. Medland: Surely my hon. Friend is aware of the fact that the senior officer commanding these troops was informed by telephone of these casualties over a month ago; and will he please say what compensation is to be paid and when?
    Mr. Edwards: That will be considered when the claim is made.
    Mr. Studholme: As the operation in question took place in my constituency, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is satisfied with the adequacy of the arrangements for rounding up the cattle and sheep prior to operations, which I was informed some two years ago would always be carried into effect; also, what time on the average elapses before Service Departments are informed of the death of these animals purported to have been shot?
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot answer with regard to the number of beasts which have been shot, but I can tell the hon. Member that the Admiralty at least do get in touch with local interests at any time that an operation is to take place, and it is more an accident than anything else when any killing does happen.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is this not a very clear case where the hon. Gentleman should tell it to the marines?
    Major Guy Lloyd: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many "bulls" were scored during this campaign?
    Mr. Medland: Is the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Studholme) aware that the officers commanding these troops are in my constituency and not in his?

    Re-engagements
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what new measures are to be taken to encourage seaman ratings to re-engage on the conclusion of their periods of service.
    Mr. W. Edwards: As stated in the reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on 19th October, consideration is being given to this matter, but I am not yet able to announce any decision.
    Sir R. Ross: Does the Civil Lord think he will soon be able to give a definite reply to this important question?
    Mr. Edwards: I am rather hopeful, but it is not entirely in our hands.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: May. I ask whether the Civil Lord is considering the suggestion I made during the Debate on the last Navy Estimates, that the American short service engagement idea should be considered by the Admiralty?
    Mr. Edwards: That is a different question altogether. This is a question of re-engaging after 12 years' service.

  POST OFFICE

    Road Transport (Christmas)
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroftasked the Postmaster-General what directives he has issued to postmasters concerning the hiring of the additional transport that they will require for the Christmas traffic; and whether he is satisfied that under it the free road haulage firms can obtain a fair share of this work.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): My directive on this subject provides for a proportion of local hirings to be made through the Road Haulage Executive where this is possible. There is no intention of excluding other road haulage undertakings and I am satisfied that they can obtain a fair share of Post Office work at Christmas.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a most monstrous arrangement and that in fact postmasters have been told to hand out their

    1997
    short-distance Christmas traffic stuff to the Road Hauliers Executive because there was an undertaking by the Government that there would not be an attempt to squeeze out the short-distance hauliers? This is a deliberate attempt to do so. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a flagrant breach of the Government's undertaking?
    Mr. Paling: I do not realise anything of the kind—indeed I dispute it. The Road Haulage Executive did take over long-distance traffic, and in doing so they took over some short-distance traffic as well. They are entitled to some consideration in this business and they get some, as also do the local hauliers.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that to hand over the traffic to the principal competitor and say, "Hand on a bit if you can spare it," really is not good enough?
    Mr. Paling: I do not agree with anything of the kind. Local hauliers do have opportunities, and it also largely depends on the lowest tender.

  TELEVISION (WALES)
  Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Postmaster-General if he will now state when he proposes to establish a high-power television station in Wales; if his plan contemplates making this service available to the whole of Wales; and if he is aware that any such station placed on the southern coast of the Bristol Channel will be of no use to many of the populous areas of South Wales.
  Mr. Price-Whiteasked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has for the provision of a television service for North, Mid, and South Wales; and whether it is proposed to establish a television station in Wales itself.
  Mr. Wilfred Paling: The BBC. proposes to build a high-power station and possibly also a low-power station in the Bristol Channel area and is making local tests to find which site or sites would enable the best service to be given to the greatest number of people. Until these tests are complete it is not possible to say whether a television station will be established in Wales itself, or to determine the precise coverage in South Wales of
  1998
  the station or stations to be provided. In view of the limited number of wavelengths available, it has not so far been possible to make proposals for additional stations for North and Mid-Wales.
  Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Welsh people will take very great exception to any television service coming to Wales from outside Wales, and that they will not be satisfied until a television station is established in Wales to be conducted in the manner that Welsh people would desire?
  Mr. Paling: My hon. Friend can rest assured that the B.B.C. and the other people concerned will do all in their power to give Wales a good television service.
  Colonel Hutchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland will be very glad to get television, whether it comes from outside or not; also is he able to say whether the plan, outlined by the Lord President of the Council after devaluation, has been affected by the subsequent economy cuts, and, if so, can he make a statement as to what the effect will be?
  Mr. Paling: No, Sir. At the moment I cannot say what the effect will be.
  Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Wales is a nation—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Medland.
  Mr. Medland: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that before setting up a television station in Wales, which would necessitate the purchase of television sets which the people cannot buy, it would be better to build a post office in Plymouth so that we can buy stamps?
  Mr. Price-White: Is the Minister aware that following the erection of the station which he recently announced, and having regard to the known effective reception area today, a fixed coastal belt from the Dee down to Pembroke will be entirely without a television service? If it is sufficient under the existing wireless arrangements to provide a station in Wales, why not a television station? Is he also aware that to associate South Wales with the Bristol Channel area is like showing a red rag to a bull?
  Mr. Paling: I do not think it is possible to say that. As I said, this matter is being considered. I do not think it is possible to say yet what particular coverage will be given, either in this particular case or other cases.
  Mr. Cobb: Would the right hon. Gentlemen bear in mind that if Scotsmen want their own television programme the Sassenachs will subsidise it?

  TELEPHONE SERVICE (AUTOMATIC REGISTER)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now able to make a statement on the provision of an automatic register of charges to be attached to telephones such as is already in existence in Switzerland.
  Mr. Wilfred Paling: Subscribers in Switzerland are provided with automatic registers attached to their telephones mainly in order to record charges for non-local calls, which they dial direct. These registers cannot be provided in the British system so long as toll and trunk calls are completed by operators, as at present. The problem of extending the range over which subscribers in this country can complete calls by dialling is under examination, and the study will cover the possibility of providing meters at subscribers' premises.
  Mr. Freeman: Is it not a fact that accounts are not rendered to subscribers until many months afterwards and are difficult to check, and that the desirability of having some automatic register is of paramount importance? Can my right hon. Friend give attention to the provision of such a register?
  Mr. Paling: As I indicated in my answer, we are studying the possibility of doing so, but it is a matter which takes time.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Switzerland and many other countries are now much in advance of us, both with regard to the design of the apparatus and the facilities offered; and exactly what is the right hon. Gentleman doing to spur the Post Office into renewed activity?
  Mr. Paling: I think my answer indicated what we are doing.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Air Attachés
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Air what advice he has given to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs regarding the withdrawal of air attachés from foreign countries; in which countries air attachés are still maintained; and from which countries attachés have been withdrawn.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): As the answer contains a number of details, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Major Beamish: May I ask the Minister on what grounds he advised the Foreign Secretary to withdraw our air attaché from Madrid recently, and will he say by whom the Royal Air Force is represented in Spain and whether he is satisfied with that representation?
    Mr. Henderson: I have examined the whole question of air attachés in the interests of economy and two air attachés have been withdrawn; two more are being withdrawn, and in addition I have withdrawn seven assistant air attachés. As regards the representation in Madrid, we are now in discussion with the Foreign Office as to the best method.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that where air attachés or assistant air attachés are still in foreign countries, they have aircraft to move around in, and to advertise British goods.
    Mr. Henderson: That is another question.
    Following is the answer:
    I have, in the interests of economy, been reviewing all our air attaché appointments abroad. Before taking a decision in any particular case I consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The places in which air attachés are maintained are listed in column 260 of the Air Force List, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
    Since January, 1948, air attachés and assistant air attachés have been withdrawn as follow:

    Capital

    Air Attaché

    Assistant Air Attaché

    Ankara (Turkey)

    —

    1 Wing Commander

    Bogota (Colombia)

    1 Group Captain

    —

    Budapest (Hungary)

    —

    1 Squadron Leader

    Buenos Aires (Argentine)

    —

    1 Squadron Leader

    Madrid (Spain)

    1 Wing Commander

    —

    Prague (Czechoslovakia)

    —

    1 Squadron Leader

    Rome (Italy)

    —

    1 Squadron Leader

    Sofia (Bulgaria)

    —

    1 Squadron Leader

    Washington (U.S.A.)

    —

    1 Squadron Leader

    In addition it has been decided to withdraw the following air attachés:

    Capital

    Air Attaché

    Dublin (Irish Republic

    …

    1 Wing Commander

    Sofia (Bulgaria)

    …

    1 Wing Commander

    Meteorological Research
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken to ascertain meteorological information at high altitudes; and what progress has been made.
    Mr. A. Henderson: As the answer is rather long, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House of the type of aircraft used for this important work, and does he appreciate that unless Britain takes the lead in research in the upper air we shall loose the lead which is being obtained now by the Comet, which is important for defence purposes?
    Mr. Henderson: I prefer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to read my reply. I think he knows that the aircraft used are four-engined Lancasters.
    Following is the answer:
    Meteorological research directed to the needs of aviation at high altitudes is carried out on a considerable scale by the Meteorological Office and the Meteorological Research Committee, and is the subject of continuous discussion with the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Measurements of wind and temperature to a height of 50,000 feet are made daily by radio and radar methods at nine land stations and two ocean weather ships and ample data in this sphere are available
    2002
    for the British Isles. For higher altitudes the Meteorological Office have devised a method of obtaining measurements up to 100,000 feet and are making observations on an experimental basis. Observational data on upper winds and temperatures are lacking for a great part of the globe, and the Meteorological Office, utilising such information as is available and employing general principles, have made computations and prepared world charts of upper winds for the different seasons and they will shortly be published under the title of "Upper Winds Over the World." Charts for temperature are also in hand. Other kinds of information relating to high altitude flying are being accumulated, information on turbulence in cloud and icing and the means of locating the regions of these dangers being examples.

    Colonial Students (Repatriation)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air what reply he has sent to a letter addressed to him on 20th October on behalf of a number of Colonial students on temporary release from the Royal Air Force, requesting him to reconsider the new arrangements for their discharge and repatriation of which they had been notified by Colonial Office circular; if he is aware that these arrangements involve a breach of assurances previously given by his Department and a reduction in the living standards of the officers and airmen concerned; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The students who signed the letter referred to were informed at an interview at the Air Ministry on 7th October that they would not be released from the R.A.F. on completion of their training course but instead would be recalled to R.A.F. service and repatriated under Service arrangements in accordance with the assurances previously given. This decision has now been communicated by letter to all commissioned officers undergoing courses under the Colonial Office Further Education Scheme.
    Mr. Driberg: While welcoming the withdrawal of this circular—which should never have been issued at all—so far as it applies to officers, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he will look

    2003
    into the position of other ranks who will suffer very grave hardship if their position is not reconsidered also?
    Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. I understand that there is another Question down.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the concern caused to a number of Royal Air Force officers and airmen by the circular recently issued by the Director of Colonial Studies, notifying them of their early discharge from the Royal Air Force and that at the end of their further education courses they are to be paid reduced living allowances and repatriated as civilians at the responsibility of his Department; and, since this arrangement will cause hardship and is, in the case of officers at least, a breach of the terms and assurances on which their temporary release from the Royal Air Force was approved, if he will cause this circular to be modified or withdrawn.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The circular letter was issued to meet what the Minister for Air and I have every reason to believe are the wishes of the majority of the airmen not to have to return to Service life after being away from it for a long time as students. It was also devised to meet the need of civilian trainees under the Colonial Office Further Education scheme for whom there was no provision for maintenance during the period between the end of studies and their sailing for home.
    So far as officers are concerned, the notice referred to has now been rescinded and they will, therefore, be recalled to the Royal Air Force and repatriated under service conditions. So far as I am aware, there has been no breach of assurances given to the men. On 9th November my Royal Air Force liaison officer received a letter from nine airmen out of a total of 114 students about the subsistence allowances which they will receive while awaiting return to the West Indies but they do not ask for recall to the Royal Air Force. These representations are receiving consideration. This is not a matter of students' allowances but of a payment to men while waiting to return home and who are relieved of necessity of rejoining
    2004
    the forces. The allowances are not inadequate but any case of hardship will be considered.
    Mr. Driberg: While welcoming the withdrawal of this circular—which should never have been issued at all—so far as it applies to officers, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look again at the position of other ranks, who will suffer great hardship if their subsistence allowance is cut by one-third, as at present stated in the circular?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have given an assurance that the question of subsistence will be looked at in cases of hardship.

    Cadet College, Cranwell (Candidates)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air how many entrants sat for the recent entrance examination for the Royal Air Force Cadet College, Cranwell how many candidates were successful and how many failed to pass the examination; what number of cadets there are at present at Cranwell; and how this number compares with the total number that can be accepted at the college.
    Mr. A. Henderson: One hundred and nine candidates sat for the written examination: 48 passed, 50 failed, while 11 withdrew or were rejected on medical grounds. In addition there were 200 candidates, mainly from the R.A.F., the Apprentice Schools and the A.T.C., who were excused the written examination. Entrants to the R.A.F. College are selected from all these categories, and for the next entry there were 44 vacancies, all of which have been filled. The capacity of the R.A.F. College is 400. The present strength is 331.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the information he has given is most unsatisfactory and will in time have a direct bearing on the Royal Air Force itself, and can he say what steps he is taking with his Ministry to try to rectify the position?
    Mr. Henderson: On the contrary, I think that the information that I have given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is satisfactory. He will remember that the last time he raised this matter I told him that only 60 per cent. of the capacity

    2005
    was filled. Now the figure is 80 per cent. and I am informed that within the next two or three terms it will be up to 100 per cent. That is as a result of the action which I and the Air Ministry have taken through the intensive effort we have made with the help of the Headmasters' Conference and of the special school liaison officers' teams which we have set up.
    Mr. George Ward: Is it not the case that a great deal of the reluctance of people to go to Cranwell now is because cadets are given so little flying there, and will the Minister take steps to see that they are given at least as much flying as men were given before the war?
    Mr. Henderson: I will certainly look into that point. I can only repeat that the position is getting better all the time. Eighty per cent. of the capacity is now filled, whereas six months ago 60 per cent. was filled, and I hope that the figure will be 100 per cent. within the next few months.

    Requisitioned Equipment, Malaya (Compensation)
    Mr. Walter Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of recent recommendations of the Joint Select Committee of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, he will now state when adequate payment will be made for equipment requisitioned in Malaya by or on behalf of the Royal Air Force and later destroyed in order to deny it to the enemy.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I am advised that the Report of the Joint Select Committee has no direct bearing on the issues raised in the hon. Member's Question, the position on which is as follows. All claims for equipment requisitioned for use by or supplied to the Royal Air Force in Malaya have been or will be paid as soon as it has been possible to establish satisfactory proof of requisition or supply. This rule applies even where such equipment was later destroyed in order to deny it to the enemy. In the case of claims arising out of denial measures in the face of an advancing enemy, legal liability cannot be admitted by the Crown but they may be considered under the Malayan War Damage Compensation scheme. On this point I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my
    2006
    right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 19th October last to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner).
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is 4½ years since these claims were put in, that the furnishing of evidence in a country that was overrun so rapidly is very often extremely difficult, and that the Government should not take unfair advantage in trying to shuffle out of these claims through such a lack of evidence?
    Mr. Henderson: I can only speak for the attitude of my own Department, and I certainly do not consider that the hon. Gentleman's strictures apply to my Department.
    Commander Noble: With regard to goods requistioned for denial, will the Minister say whether he has been able to make any arrangement for some sort of appeal, because it has been admitted that often there are two sides to these questions?
    Mr. Henderson: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    Commander Noble: It has been.

    National Service Men, Germany (Leave)
    Mr. Symondsasked the Secretary of State for Air what period of leave is granted to National Service men serving in the Royal Air Force in Germany; and how this compares with the leave granted before 1st January last.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The period of leave granted to National Service men serving in Germany varies according to the date of entry into the Service. Those called up before 1st April, 1948, are eligible for the same scale of leave as regular personnel and receive 42 days' leave a year in the United Kingdom and 10 days' local leave. National Service men who entered the R.A.F. in the period 1st April, 1948, to 31st December, 1948, are eligible, while serving in Germany, for one period of 19 days' leave in the United Kingdom, provided that they had not less than eight months to serve when posted abroad; they also receive seven days' local leave. Those called up on or after 1st January, 1949, may be granted

    2007
    14 days' leave during service in Germany, which they may take in the United Kingdom if they had not less than eight months to serve when they were posted to Germany.
    Mr. Symonds: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of the latter group of men complain that they get only about one-third of the amount of leave granted to similar men in this country, mainly, I gather, because weekend passes do not, as in this country, extend from Friday afternoon to Sunday night but are not available until mid-day on Saturday, which makes week-end leave almost impossible? Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into that matter?
    Mr. Henderson: I will certainly look into the suggestion that week-end leave is not possible, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the National Service man who joined since 1st January of this year is entitled to 14 days' home leave before proceeding to Germany, 14 days' leave while serving in Germany under the qualification to which I have referred, and then at the end of his service he is entitled to 18 days' terminal leave, and I do not think that that is too bad.

    Land, Waltham Aerodrome (Use)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Air why his Retford office has offered to rent over 100 acres of grassland adjacent to Waltham aerodrome, near Grimsby, to Mr. G. F. Sleight, Hillside Farm, Brigsley, but will not permit him to plough it up; and, in view of the official policy for increased arable cultivation, if he will have this decision reversed at once so that the land may be cultivated.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The area of land in question forms part of the main aerodrome site which may be required for civil flying. This precludes its being ploughed up.
    Mr. Osborne: But is not the Minister aware that this aerodrome has been left derelict for five years and, since the Minister of Agriculture is asking farmers to plough up as much land as possible would it not be wise to let this man plough up the land and to apply the principle generally to aerodromes throughout the country?
    Mr. Henderson: I think that I am entitled to say in defence of my own Department that we have been prepared to dispose of this aerodrome but that my noble Friend the Minister of Civil Aviation is at present engaged in discussions with the borough concerned with a view to it being used for civil aviation. Therefore, the matter is not in my hands.
    Mr. Osborne: Since this aerodrome has been idle for five years, cannot we have a quick decision so that the policy of the Minister of Agriculture can be carried out?
    Mr. Henderson: I am not taking part in these discussions but I will certainly ensure that my noble Friend the Minister of Civil Aviation is made aware of the need for urgency in this matter.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Flying Clubs
    Mr. Spenceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many flying clubs in Great Britain are now operating; how many operate from private airfields; and how many from airfields used by services such as British European Airways Corporation and the Auxiliary Air Force.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): It is estimated that 100 flying clubs are now operating in Great Britain, of which 30 operate from privately-owned aerodromes, 13 operate from aerodromes used by scheduled air services, nine operate from aerodromes used by the Auxiliary Air Force, and one operates from an aerodrome used by both scheduled air services and the Auxiliary Air Force.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the flying tuition fees at these clubs are £3 per hour in addition to entry money of £3 3s. and subscription of £5 5s., and in the case of those clubs which are using nationalised airfields can he not do something to reduce these charges to bring them within the compass of the ordinary person's purse?
    Mr. Lindgren: That is an entirely different question.
    Mr. Spenceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil

    2009
    Aviation when he will allow the Aberdeen Flying Club at Dyce to resume its normal activities.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am not aware of any circumstances within the control of my Department which prevent the Aberdeen Flying Club from resuming its normal activities at Dyce.
    Mr. Spence: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that, while the buildings are being de-requisitioned, no residences have been restored and they are therefore unable to be used?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. Those associated with the local club were informed in June, 1946, that flying club activities could take place from then.
    Mr. George Ward: Has a decision been taken on whether the recommendations of the Straight Committee are to be implemented or not?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir; that is another question.
    Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Aberdeen Flying Club have not had their rights on this airport restored to them, that for 10 years and six weeks they have not been allowed to trade or to serve meals or drinks because of a state of emergency; and that, although their clubhouse was allegedly derequisitioned on 8th August, 1946, no compensation rent has been paid and no dilapidations to the clubhouse have been carried out; and that the proprietors of the club have no legal right to cross the ground and enter the premises?
    Mr. Lindgren: I do not accept those statements in any shape or form. In June, 1946, at the request of the authorities associated with the Aberdeen Flying Club, the buildings were de-requisitioned, and, subject to certain qualifications, operations could have begun and continued from then.

    Dyce Airport (Landings)
    Mr. Spenceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the average number of aircraft, over the last six months, landing daily at Dyce Airport, giving separate figures for Royal Air Force and Auxiliary Air Force aircraft, instructional aircraft of
    2010
    the University Air Squadron, and commercial and private aircraft.
    Mr. Lindgren: During the six months ended August last the daily average was 20 landings comprising 14.6 military and official aircraft, 4.5 commercial aircraft, 0.3 private aircraft and 0.6 aircraft on test or training.

  FLOATING DOCK, KIEL (DISPOSAL)
  Mr. Errollasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to issue disposal instructions for floating dock, No. TNC 70, at present lying in Kiel Harbour.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I expect to be in a position to issue disposal instructions shortly.
  Mr. Erroll: Can the Foreign Secretary say why he has been so slow in this matter, when this dock has been hanging about for months?
  Mr. Bevin: I really have not been slow, but I have had to consult with several other people involved.

  BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES, U.S.A.
  Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the cost of administering the British Information Services in the United States of America during the last financial year; and what will be the estimated cost next year.
  Mr. Bevin: The total cost during the financial year 1948–49 was £223,068. The estimated cost during the current financial year, after allowing for the extra expense arising from the readjustment of the dollar-sterling rate, is £271,991. I am not yet in a position to state what the estimated cost will be for 1950–51.
  Major Beamish: While I recognise that the British Information Services have done some good work since the war, is the Foreign Secretary entirely satisfied that this very considerable and rising expenditure is really justified, and will he not consider returning to the pre-war system, which was less expensive and in many ways more efficient?
  Mr. Bevin: If some of those who are enemies of the country and the Government would not make such foolish statements in America, I could get this cost down.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Can the Foreign Secretary say how he is advised regarding the value of this service? Does the Ambassador take a personal interest in this important matter?
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, he takes a personal interest, but I can no more judge the value of that, than I can judge the value of the work of the constituency which the hon. Member represents.
  Mr. Harris: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman spends money on it?
  Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend try to restrain the British Information Services from conveying misleading information to the American people, such as that contained in a pamphlet in which it was stated that the National Health Service and other social security services were introduced with the approval of all parties in this country?
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is it not a fact that this comparatively small staff has done an enormous amount of good?
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent his instructions make the British Information Services responsible for countering inaccurate and tendentious statements about this country given currency by individual Americans or organisations in the United States of America.
  Mr. Bevin: It is the task of the British Information Services to see that information about this country is given without distortion to the people of the United States. An important part of this task consists in making available to the American Press and radio, and to influential Americans generally, material to counter inaccurate and tendentious statements of the sort that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether this excellent organisation, of which I have recent personal experience, has done anything to refute the slanderous statements made about this country and its people by that
  2012
  cheapjack film magnate, Mr. Eric Johnston?
  Mr. Bevin: I can only say that I rely on the intelligence of the American people.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the task of the British Information Services in refuting inaccurate and tendentious statements is not considerably prejudiced by such statements as that made yesterday by a man in the important position of chairman of the dollar export group?
  Mr. Osborne: Will the Minister make it quite clear through the British Information Services that we on this side of the House at any rate do not think that the Americans are shabby moneylenders?

  CHINA

    Diplomatic Relations
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now any statement to make about the recognition of the Chinese Communist Government at Peking.
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the provocative attitude now adopted by the Chinese Nationalist Government in reference to British ships in Chinese territorial waters, he will take steps to expedite recognition of the People's Republic of China.
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the meeting of Foreign Office representatives in Singapore, he will now make a statement as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government regarding the recognition of the Communist Government in China.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the recommendation made to him by the Far Eastern diplomats, who met in Singapore recently, on the recognition of the Chinese Communist Government.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of Order. Before Questions Nos. 26 and 27 are answered, could we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Presumably, they were both accepted by the Clerks at the Table, and, therefore, in

    2013
    order that the House may be fully informed on the Chinese situation, may we be told if the term "People's Republic of China" in Question No. 27 means the same as "Chinese Communist Government" in Question No. 26?
    Mr. Speaker: I should not have thought that there was much difference myself.
    Mr. Bevin: No decision has been taken by His Majesty's Government about the recognition as the Government of China of the Chinese Communist Government. His Majesty's Government are still in consultation on this matter with friendly Governments and will take into account all the relevant factors in reaching their conclusion.
    Mr. Fletcher: In view of the serious and anomalous position in Shanghai and other parts of China, where British lives and those of British subjects, as well as British property, are at stake, would the Minister consider establishing some form of communication by appointing an official to the Peking Government, if he does not wish to tackle the major question just yet?
    Mr. Bevin: I did communicate with the Communist Government, but I have not had a reply. I am more concerned in acting together with the Commonwealth and with other friendly Governments, than with taking a hurried decision on this. I think a combined decision in which a large number of people co-operate in this business is much the best.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the situation has materially deteriorated in the last few days, and does he not further agree that, whatever remaining shreds of reasons there may have been for retaining recognition of the National Government, they have now been entirely swept away?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, but there are a lot of issues involved—the United Nations, the Security Council, and the question of the views of the United States and our own Commonwealth. In a great changeover of this character, one has to act with caution, reasonable speed and with an idea of producing the best results.
    Mr. Piratin: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether his officials in the Far East who met at Singapore the other day
    2014
    recommended that he should recognise the Chinese People's Republican Government?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not report to the House decisions of civil servants at any conference.
    Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say how long he anticipates the discussions with the Commonwealth and other friendly Governments are likely to take?
    Mr. Bevin: I cannot guess the speed at which everybody will move, and it is unwise to speculate.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman seize the opportunity tomorrow of making the situation a little clearer, because the situation which does exist now is a danger to the lives of a great many British subjects out there, and can possibly be separated from the question of recognition? It would allay the fears and anxieties if some sort of progress report were to be made.
    Mr. Bevin: I think my answers today have made it pretty clear, and I shall not have much time tomorrow to deal with all the world. If the hon. Gentleman reads the answers given today, he will see that I am following this thing through methodically and I am hoping to produce a good result. I do not think there are any British lives actually in danger in Shanghai at the moment, so far as I know.
    Mr. Warbey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are moderate elements supporting the Communist Government in China who desire early British recognition to counteract excessive Chinese dependence on the Soviet Union; and is he further aware that the longer that recognition is delayed, the more likely it is that China will be driven into the Soviet camp?
    Mr. Gammans: Before there is any question of the recognition of this Government without guarantees, will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the very delicate situation that still exists in Malaya, where at present we are fighting the Communists and where, presumably, after recognition, the Communists will be regarded in an entirely different light?

    British Shipping (Protection)
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government recognise the existence of a blockade on or near the Yangtse river by the Chinese National Government; and what communications he has had with the Chinese National Government with a view to preventing interference with British shipping in those waters.
    Mr. Bevin: The Chinese National Government claim that the measures taken by them do not constitute a blockade, but merely give effect to a domestic closure order. The legal situation is in dispute. His Majesty's Government, however, consider that they are undoubtedly entitled to give naval protection to British merchantment outside Chinese territorial waters, and, accordingly, have told the Chinese National Government that they intend to give that protection. The Chinese National Government have also been told that we regard attempts to enforce the closure order by attacks on unarmed merchantmen as illegitimate and unfriendly even if such attacks are made inside territorial waters.
    Mr. Fletcher: In view of the fact that two vessels have been attacked from sea and air and that there are at least 10 vessels waiting to break the blockade after giving His Majesty's Government warning of the fact and receiving some encouragement, will the right hon. Gentleman see that appropriate action is taken to make the protection effective so that the blockade can be broken?
    Mr. Bevin: I think I have done that. Two ships got out today, I believe.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the nature of his contacts with the National Government, and would he leave them in no doubt as to the support which we on this side give to the representations already made?
    Mr. Bevin: We are in contact, as far as we can be, with the National Government; we have made the strongest representations to them on this point, and we have given support to our merchantmen outside territorial waters.
    Mr. John Paton: In view of the fact that the Chinese National Government are now utterly unable to exercise any form
    2016
    of control over these territorial waters, and that there is no official blockade legally recognised, is it not the duty of His Majesty's Government in these circumstances to give protection to our merchant vessels pursuing their lawful occasions, even within territorial waters?
    Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask whether the action which the Government have taken is the same as that taken by the United States Government whose vessels are also affected?
    Mr. Bevin: As I understand it, the legal position is in dispute, and I can say no more than I have said. We are doing our best in this matter with, I think, some success.

  ARAB REFUGEES (ASSISTANCE)
  Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action His Majesty's Government is now proposing to take to assist the Arab refugees; and what is the extent of this problem.
  Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Government are now awaiting the publication of the interim report of the United Nations Economic Survey Mission for the Middle East which was appointed by the Palestine Conciliation Commission to consider and make recommendations regarding the refugee problem. His Majesty's Government will co-operate as far as their resources allow in carrying out such of the survey mission's recommendations as may be approved by the General Assembly. No accurate estimate of the extent of the problem is available. United Nations Relief for Palestine refugees is at present supplying food for 940,000 persons.
  Sir R. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring to the notice of the United Nations the extreme urgency of this problem in view of the approaching winter and the fact that many of these refugees are out in the desert with very few clothes, houses or tents?
  Mr. Bevin: We have done that; we have stressed almost every week the desirability of reaching a decision in this matter.

  GREECE (ABDUCTED CHILDREN)
  Mr. Symondsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the United Kingdom representatives at the United Nations have agreed to the proposal to hand over to the International Red Cross the responsibility for tracing and returning to their parents Greek children abducted by the rebel forces during the civil war; what interest in the welfare of such children is row taken by the United Nations; and what is the present position with regard to them.
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, the United Kingdom delegate supported a resolution passed unanimously on 3rd November by the Political Committee of the United Nations Assembly, which recommended that the International Red Cross should be requested to continue their efforts to arrange the return to their homes of the children removed from Greece. During the course of tie past year representatives of the International Red Cross visited Greece, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, and corresponded on the subject with the Red Cross societies of those countries and with those of Albania, Hungary and Roumania. No children have, however, yet been returned to their homes from any of these countries.
  Mr. Symonds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people interested in the welfare of these children have found it rather difficult lately to find out just what the situation is with regard to them, and that if he can give an assurance that the United Nations are still taking a close interest in the matter it will be reassuring?
  Mr. Bevin: I am pressing them to do that. I think it is one of the scandals of the age.

  INDO-CHINA (BOI DAI ADMINISTRATION)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the French Government requesting recognition by His Majesty's Government of the Boi Dai administration in Indo-China; and what reply he has given.
  Mr. Bevin: No such representations have been received.
  Mr. Wyatt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any recognition by this country of the Boi Dai administration would be tantamount in the East to recognition or to endorsement of the French reactionary and Imperialist policy in Indo-China, and would he give the House an assurance that he will in no circumstances recognise this puppet administration?
  Mr. Bevin: I think it is rather unwise to refer to the French Government in that way or to make loose use of such phrases as "puppet Government," and the rest of it. It all depends what the French Chamber does in the finality, and, therefore, I must await that result.

  POLAND (MINISTER OF DEFENCE)
  Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protest he has made to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in respect of the appointment of a Russian marshal, namely, Marshal Rokossovsky, by Marshal Stalin as Minister of Defence for Poland, constituting a breach of the agreement reached at Yalta between His Majesty's Government, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the sovereign independence of Poland.
  Mr. Bevin: I do not consider that the Yalta Agreement gives His Majesty's Government status for intervening in this matter, and no protest has been made.
  Mr. Blackburn: Is it not a fact that on more than one occasion Stalin has specifically guaranteed the sovereign independence of Poland, and, surely, the appointment of a Russian marshal—and in particular the marshal who was responsible for the delay of the Soviet troops in front of Warsaw, and, therefore, the destruction by the Germans of the gallant Polish underground movement—interferes with the sovereign independence of Poland?
  Mr. Bevin: I cannot object to the Polish Government inviting a native of Poland to go to command their troops. That is not my business.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that this marshal is the Pole who put the Germans up the pole?

  UNITED NATIONS (ITALIAN SOMALILAND)
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the attitude taken by the British Government's representative to the United Nations Political Committee towards the letter of the Somali Youth League sent to the United Nations on 13th October, 1949, and discussed by the Political Committee.
  Mr. Bevin: The letter in question, which contained a number of baseless allegations against the British administration in Italian Somaliland, was discussed in the Political Committee of the United Nations on 15th and 18th October. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, refuted the allegations in the course of the debate. A resolution which might have implied criticism of the British administration of the territory was subsequently rejected.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case, as the Minister admits, that very serious allegations have been made against the British military and political administration and that the only rebuttal of it by the Minister was a statement from the accused official, and will not the Foreign Secretary encourage an independent inquiry into what is going on in Somaliland?
  Mr. Bevin: I would like to be able to conduct a thorough, independent inquiry into how the hon. Member's friends managed to stir up this thing.
  Mr. Henry Usborne: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what proportion of the reports issued by the political committee of the United Nations he personally ever has time to read?
  Mr. Bevin: I do my duty when my hon. Friend is asleep. I start at 5 o'clock in the morning.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Judges (Status)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if in view of recent events in the Seychelles, he is prepared to issue instructions to Colonial Governors to clarify the status of Colonial judges.
    Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir. The independent status of Colonial judges in relation to the Executive is fully established and is well understood by Colonial governors.
    Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there is any ambiguity on the subject it is due to the improper and unfortunate remarks made by his Under-Secretary in this House for which he has received a "ticking off" by the Lord Chancellor? Would the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to this fact?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Lord Chancellor's remarks have nothing to do with the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State.
    Mr. Marlowe: Did not the Lord Chancellor express a view directly contrary to that expressed by the Under-Secretary?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is a complete misunderstanding.

    Development Plans (Revision)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what percentage of the 10-year plans under the Colonial Development Acts have had to be revised on account of rising costs or for other reasons.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Two out of the 23 approved Colonial development plans have been revised, four others are in the course of revision or are about to be revised, and the remainder will fall to be revised under general arrangements which provide for review in the light of changed circumstances at approximately three yearly intervals.

  SOLOMON ISLANDS (WAR DAMAGE CLAIMS)
  Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total of claims received under the war damage scheme for the British Solomon Islands Protectorate; and what is the amount available.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Claims registered amounted to £1,180,000. It was, however, decided not to set up a War Damage Compensation Scheme since the native

  2021
  economy had already been largely restored and adequate capital resources are available in other cases. Money has been made available to provide interest-free loans to planters needing them to restore their properties.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is it not a fact that one or more planters have lost everything as a result of the Japanese occupation? Should they not be treated on the same footing as other people in other colonies who have at least been compensated?
  Mr. Creech Jones: With respect to other islands there were insurance schemes. In any case, these territories are grant-aided, and the conditions of production since the war are extremely remunerative.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: If I send particulars of a case to the right hon. Gentleman will he look into it?
  Mr. Creech Jones indicated assent.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Dried Eggs
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Minister of Food whether he will now increase the allocation of dried eggs.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I presume the noble Lady has in mind the domestic pack dried egg which is a special issue during the winter months to expectant mothers and to children under five years. I am glad to say that for the eight weeks' period beginning 6th November the rate of allocation will be two packets per person which is twice the quantity allocated for the previous period.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Is the right hon. Lady going to increase the supply of dried eggs to those who are not holders of priority books?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid we cannot do that because dried eggs cost dollars.

    Maize (Republic of Ireland)
    Sir R. Rossasked the Minister of Food whether he will undertake that maize shall not be lent to the Irish
    2022
    Republic this year on terms which permit of its replacement by the Irish Republic when maize is cheaper than at the time of the original loan.
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.
    Sir R. Ross: Why is the right hon. Lady contemplating a transaction similar to last year which brought no profit to this country?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We did gain some advantage because we saved storage charges.

    Official Envelopes (Use)
    Mr. Molsonasked the Minister of Food whether it is with his authority that an officer of his Department is circulating, on behalf of the Civil Service Sanatorium Society, literature relating to a "Grand Holidays Scheme," sanatorium treatment and staff welfare matters in envelopes marked, "On His Majesty's Service," and "Officially Paid," of which a sample has been sent to him.
    Dr. Summerskill: It is quite proper to include literature on staff and welfare matters with official communications in officially paid envelopes. On the other hand, the distribution of a book of tickets for the "Grand Holidays Scheme" was improper, and I will see that it does not happen again.
    Mr. Molson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that this is the second time that I have had to draw attention to the improper use by Ministry of Food officials of official envelopes of this kind? Would she take steps to see that it does not happen again?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.

    F.A.O. Conference, Washington
    Mr. Henry Usborneasked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the widespread disappointment at the Government's failure to support the proposals for a world food board, as advanced by Lord Boyd-Orr in 1946; and what instructions have been given to the British delegation to the Food and Agricultural Organisation Conference in Washington on 21st November on the proposals for an International Commodity Clearing House with a 500 million dollar capital.
    Dr. Summerskill: The answer to the first part of the Question is No, Sir. As regards the second, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, will be leading the United Kingdom delegation to the forthcoming Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and copies of any speech which he may make to the Conference will be made available to the House in due course.
    Mr. Usborne: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the proposals of the International Commodity Clearing House, if accepted, would put immense power into the hands of a body which is unrepresentative not only of public opinion, but also of consumers' demands? Would it not be far better to accept the proposals which were originally made for a world food board or something like that?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have carefully considered the proposals. There are certain features of which we do not approve, and I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is desirable to give my right hon. Friend a free hand during negotiations.
    Captain Crookshank: If there is to be a meeting of the Food and Agricultural Organisation, how is it that neither the Minister of Food nor the Minister of Agriculture is to go, whereas the President of the Board of Trade is to go, and he seems to have nothing to do with it?
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be in the United States during that period and, no doubt, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will recall that he did represent us once before. As to the Ministry of Agriculture, an official is going from there.
    Captain Crookshank: And the Ministry of Food?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes.
    Mr. Warbey: Reverting to my right hon. Friend's reply to the original Question, when she says that copies of the speeches will be made available to hon. Members, does she mean that they will be made specially available or that we shall have to wait the usual two or three months before we receive the reports through the United Nations organisation?
    Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend cares to put down another Question on that point later I shall perhaps be able to see that copies are made available in the Library.
    Brigadier Head: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the British public are fed-up with food boards but not with food?

    Subsidies
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Food whether the sums paid to food, fruit and vegetable distributors is included under the heading of subsidies; and how much annually is the total sum thus paid out.
    Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Member consults the latest published Ministry of Food Trading Accounts he will find a figure of £12,684,640 for the commission and expenses of agents and distributors. After sale by my Department margins are earned by distributors further down the chain of distribution but are charged in the price to the consumer and do not appear in the accounts. In the case of subsidised commodities, distributive margins could be said to form one element of the subsidy bill but the amounts could not be evaluated with precision, and in any case it would be misleading to earmark any particular share of these outgoings to the subsidies.
    Mr. Piratin: While that answer requires some further study by myself, and by all of us I imagine, may I ask the Minister what she intends to do about stopping these "pensions," as they are referred to in "Labour Believes in Britain"? What steps will she take to stop them immediately?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman no doubt knows that "Labour Believes in Britain" covers our next programme.

  WHISKY (EXPORTS TO U.S.A.)
  Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Minister of Food to what extent whisky distillers are refusing contracts for exports to the United States; and what action he proposes to take in such cases in view of the necessity for exports to the dollar areas.
  Dr. Summerskill: My information is that exporters of Scotch whisky are accepting all the orders from the United States which they can meet out of supplies at present available.
  Mr. Hughes: Does not this statement refute the malicious utterances of Mr. Eric Johnston, which were given wide publicity in the British Press, and could my right hon. Friend say how much of this estimable commodity Mr. Johnston consumed before he made these statements?
  Dr. Summerskill: I do not think Mr. Eric Johnston is regarded as a spokesman for the people of the United States.

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (REVISED EXPENDITURE)
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I would like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement on the Festival of Britain, 1951.
As I told the House in the Debate on 27th October, the projects originally proposed by the Council of the Festival of Britain, 1951, would have involved a gross cost to the Exchequer of about £14 million. I had already given instructions for a substantial reduction in this total, which was well in train when it was overtaken by the general programme of economies in public expenditure announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24th October.
The final outcome is that the limit of gross expenditure from the Exchequer on Festival account has been set at £11,300,000. Possibilities of increasing the receipts to the Exchequer from the Festival have also been reviewed, and it is estimated that revenue will be forthcoming to bring the net expenditure, without taking account of receipts for the disposal of assets, down to £9 million. This compares with an estimated total net expenditure of £10 million immediately before the cuts. The expenditure will be spread over the current financial year and the two following ones.
These cuts have involved some curtailment of the programme which had been envisaged. The various exhibition projects will, however, go forward broadly
2026
as planned and there will be no reduction in the industrial content of the South Bank and Glasgow Exhibitions. I am satisfied that, with enterprise, ingenuity and care, the Festival organisation will be able to put on a first-rate effort for the money available.
Of the gross expenditure, some £10 million will fall on the Vote of the Festival of Britain Office and some £600,000 on that of the Ministry of Transport. The balance of some £700,000 is made up mainly of expenditure on account of the Festival by the Arts Council of Great Britain and by the Council of Industrial Design, with a small sum for the British Film Institute. The principal item of expenditure by the Festival of Britain Office will, of course, be the main 1951 Exhibition on the South Bank, which is estimated at £6 million. This sum will cover expenditure on site work, the construction and equipment of buildings, exhibition displays, operating and maintenance costs and all other services.
The other principal items in the estimate are £450,000 for the Science Exhibition at South Kensington; £380,000 for the Exhibition of Heavy Engineering at the Kelvin Hall, Glasgow; £240,000 for the "Live" Architecture Exhibition at Poplar; and £850,000 for the two Travelling Exhibitions which will be visiting 14 centres in the United Kingdom. The remainder of the expenditure will be in respect of various supplementary services necessary to the success of these exhibitions, and also, of course, the salaries and overheads of the Festival Headquarters.
The Government will make loans to Festival Gardens Ltd., which will construct and operate the Pleasure Gardens in Battersea Park. As the House is aware, the total outlay has been estimated at £770,000. The Festival Office and the London County Council will advance sums as they are required in the ratio of 60:40, with a limit to the loan by the London County Council of £200,000. The total of £11,300,000, however, only includes a figure of £60,000 in respect of the Festival Gardens, which is an estimate of the loss the Government might have to bear.
These details are, I think, sufficient to give the House a clear picture of the distribution of expenditure between the various Festival projects. The Festival

2027
Office have already made public some account of their plans, and I understand that they are now issuing a fairly detailed account of the scope, character and content of the South Bank Exhibition. This will be followed in due course by detailed announcements about other parts of the programme as they mature.
Mr. Oliver Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman has made a long, detailed and important statement on this matter and, obviously, we should require time to consider it before we made any comments on it. I should, however, like to make our general position plain. My right hon. and hon. Friends and myself have supported the Festival of Britain in the past, but we have supported it on the grounds which we understood were, and hope will still remain, its principal objects. We do not look upon this as a sort of national jamboree. We feel that it would be quite inappropriate at this moment to determine beforehand that such a thing should be held within 18 months' time. We have supported it because it has been put forward as an opportunity of showing to the people of the world what Britain is capable of—showing them the best of our products, our industries and of our arts; and, on the secondary consideration, that it might induce a considerable tourist traffic to this country. On those grounds we shall continue to support the Exhibition, but it does mean that we shall scrutinise very carefully any items of expenditure which appear to be irrelevant to those main objectives, and on such items we cannot promise automatic support of the Government in this matter.
Mr. Morrison: I have no complaint whatever about anything the right hon. Gentleman has said. I gathered that this was to be a non-party effort and for the purposes which he has indicated, and those are the purposes which are in the Government's mind. Of course, that does not prejudice the right of anybody in the House to criticise particular matters, as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated. What I think is important and is welcome to me is that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that fundamentally and on broad grounds this commands the assent of the Opposition as well as that of the Government side of the House.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, in spite of what has been said, there are a great many people on this side of the House and a great many people in the country who will welcome this occasion as one for demonstrating not merely what this country is capable of, but its remarkable achievements since 1945, for which we on this side of the House, at any rate, see no reason to apologise?
Mr. Morrison: I am bound to say that I understand very fully the point which my hon. Friend makes, but I must make it abundantly clear that this is a festival which indicates developments in our country not since 1945, but since 1851 and the last thing in the world I would wish would be that this should be turned into—or was ever contemplated as—a partisan venture.
Commander Noble: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what result the statement he has just made will have on the contributions to be paid by the London County Council and other London local authorities?
Mr. Morrison: I do not follow the point which the hon. and gallant Member makes.
Mr. Henry Usborne: Could my right hon. Friend say whether any plans are being considered for taking part of the Exhibition to other parts of the British Commonwealth, notably Canada—perhaps Toronto? Would Toronto not be rather a good place at which to exhibit some of our products?
Mr. Morrison: I will keep that point in mind, but at the moment I have enough problems in taking it over Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the Lord President appreciate that some of us feel that this is a quite inappropriate time to spend such large sums of money unless we are going to get a real return for them? Will he cut out the frills, such as the amusement park, which are going to give a wrong impression as to how this country stands now?
Mr. Morrison: I follow the point of view and understand it, but, with great respect, I submit that it is mistaken. At this time it is more than ever important that Britain shall show itself to the world.

2029
That is the first point. Secondly, if we have a Festival of this kind, in which a high proportion of the functions must be of a fairly serious character, I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to begrudge the participants in it a little bit of good cheer also, at Battersea Park.
Mr. Harold Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are under the impression that the 1851 Exhibition made over £1 million profit, and that the amount of accumulated interest from that Exhibition might be earmarked for this?
Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, and I will go searching, but I am not sure that I am sufficiently high up in high finance to be able to guarantee that the result will be as he thinks.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the remarks of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) have really nothing to do with this Exhibition?
Mr. Morrison: I put it as nicely as I could. I do not want to quarrel with my hon. Friend, but, in fact, the idea in the mind of the Government, and, I am sure, in the mind of the Council of all parties—and it is most important that this should be stated—is that there is no partisan aspect or ambition about this effort at all.
Mr. H. D. Hughes: What financial assistance is available to local authorities for reasonable projects in connection with the Festival of Britain? Will such reasonable expenditure rank for grant?
Mr. Morrison: I understand that the local authorities are very familiar with the position.
Major Tufton Beamish: If it is, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the main object of the Festival to show ourselves to the world, and as he told me a fortnight ago that no money had been spent on advertising in the United States and that none will be spent in the next six months, will the right hon. Gentleman now indicate how he proposes to attract American visitors?
Mr. Morrison: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has two lines in his question. One is to stop us spending and the other is to incite us to spend in the United States. As regards the last point, inciting us to spend money on publicity in
2030
the United States, that is not being overlooked, but it would be premature to spend it at this point.
Mr. Gallacher: In reference to the necessity of criticism of expenditure on non-essentials, will that not have to come from a new Opposition, in view of the fact that there is going to be a National Government after the Election?
Mr. Keeling: Is the Lord President satisfied that the Exhibition will be ready by 1951, and that it will not have to be postponed for a year, in the same way that the Exhibition originally fixed for 1850 had to be postponed to 1851?
Mr. Morrison: Again, I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I did not know that. I will keep it in mind, and I hope very much that we shall be on time. As regards the point of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I recall, of course, that he and his party were advocating a coalition in 1945.
Mr. Gallacher: No they were not. The Americans are advocating it now.
Mr. S. Silverman: In order to remove any possibility of misunderstanding, for which I recognise my own carelessness would be to blame, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that what I wished to make sure of was that there should be some emphasis in this matter on achievement and not merely on capacity, and that what I wanted to do was to rescue it from the atmosphere of denigration of achievement, of which we have already heard too much.

ARMED FORCES (MARRIED QUARTERS)
The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I will, with permission, make a statement with regard to the provision of married quarters for the Services at home.
In the view of His Majesty's Government, adequate housing can make a most significant contribution towards maintaining the morale and, therefore, the efficiency of His Majesty's Forces, and improving the attractiveness of service in them as a career. Accordingly the Government have had under consideration possible means of securing an improvement in the rate of provision of married quarters for the Services in Great Britain.

2031
Hitherto, the capital required for all Service housing has been provided out of current Service Votes. The construction of houses by local authorities, however, is normally financed by loan. His Majesty's Government have decided that it is desirable that the construction of married quarters for the Services at home, which is also a contribution to the housing requirements of this country, should in suitable cases likewise be financed by loan. It is the intention that money should only be advanced by way of loan for Service housing which would be of value for general housing purposes in the event of any houses so built no longer being required for Service purposes. Subject to this condition it is proposed that power should be taken to allow the Treasury to lend money from the Consolidated Fund to the Service Departments for the construction of married quarters at home. Accordingly a Resolution to authorise the Treasury to make issues from the Consolidated Fund appears on today's Order Paper in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A White Paper explaining the terms of the Resolution has been presented by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and copies will be available in the Vote Office later today.
I should like to emphasise that the proposed gross expenditure on housing accommodation to be provided from loan will be shown on the face of the Defence Estimates under separate Votes, and that no sum can be applied from issues from the Consolidated Fund towards meeting this expenditure without the full knowledge and approval of Parliament.
The total housing requirements of the Services, whether financed from loan or from Votes, will continue to be provided for, as at present, within the total allocation for housing under the capital investment programme.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: While the House will, no doubt, view with pleasure the prospect of an increase in the rate of housing accommodation for any section of His Majesty's subjects—and we can only trust that it will be forthcoming—may I ask what rate of increase is anticipated? Secondly, since this is in order to secure an improvement in the rate of
2032
provision of Service quarters, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this increase has been allowed for in the new capital investment programme or whether it will come out of the reduced allocation of houses recently announced? Third, may we assume that they are to be tied houses?
Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. I would answer the last point first. They are to be put up as Service married quarters, but to be of such a type, if financed by loan, that they will be available for the civil population if they are no longer required for the Services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tied houses."] With regard to the second question the right hon. Gentleman asked, provision has been made for the programme within the revised capital investment programme, and the accommodation will be provided in accordance with the Government's housing programme, being agreed with the Service Ministers and the housing Ministers. With regard to the first point, I could not give a specific figure today as to the rate of increased provision, but I have no doubt that my Service colleagues could from time to time answer detailed questions on that matter.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is, however, very important that the right hon. Gentleman should give us some estimate, because he has just said it is to come out of the total allocation, and, therefore, represents a further inroad into the already scanty provision of houses made for the general population.
Mr. Alexander: This is for houses for the Services at home, and we submit that the men in the Services at home and married have as much and as urgent a right to the provision of houses as any other section of the community.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can the right hon. Gentleman point out what difference a change in the mechanics of providing the money—which is all the right hon. Gentleman's statement amounts to—can make to the rate of houses provided? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that no one will be satisfied until he has enabled every building facility to be given?
Mr. Alexander: As anyone with experience of this business knows, one of the great reasons for this is to make

2033
good the kind of arrears we have had to face in the last year or two, and which arose from long years of constant—
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Stanley: Nonsense.
Mr. Alexander: —perhaps hon. Members will please wait for me to finish the sentence—constant economy year after year, when estimates were submitted for this kind of project in the works programmes of the Services, but were cut so that the arrears piled up. If we can get this programme without having to make economies, we feel we shall have a good prospect of producing within the time envisaged the required amount of accommodation.
Mrs. Middleton: While cordially welcoming the statement made by my right hon. Friend, may I ask him if he will see that in the blitzed dockyard towns, such as the city of Plymouth, the fact that these houses are to be taken from the general allocation of houses will not detract from the number of civilian houses to be built in those areas?
Mr. Alexander: I am quite sure that the negotiations which have already taken place between the Services Ministries, the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Health Department have already made that quite clear.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am still not clear how the alteration in the machinery for paying for these houses is going to increase the actual rate of housing, unless there is to be an extra allocation of materials and labour.
Mr. Alexander: It is obvious that at this stage I cannot answer questions merely on a statement in the House. We must have an early Debate on the Financial Resolution and on the short Bill
itself. Perhaps hon. Members would allow matters to develop in that way.
Wing-Commander Millington: Is it not a simple fact that this allocation will not come out of the civilian allocation, because when a married Service man gets married quarters he moves his family from their existing civilian accommodation, thereby releasing that accommodation for civilians?
Mr. Alexander: That has been shown right through the housing provisions we have already made. With regard to the question of materials, we have had to arrange our building accommodation within the allocation of materials, and we are continuing in the same way.
Mr. Speaker: This is becoming a Debate on housing in general, and, as we have other business to do, I think that we had better get on with it.

BILL PRESENTED
  ELECTORAL REGISTERS BILL
  "to abolish autumn registers of Parliamentary and local government electors, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Ede; supported by Mr. Woodburn, Mr. Younger and Mr. Thomas Fraser; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]

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, 303; Noes, 135.

Division No. 284.]

AYES

[3.55 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Barstow, P. G.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Albu, A. H.

Barton, C.

Brown, George (Belper)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Battley, J. R.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Alpass, J. H.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Keswick, F.

Burden, T. W.

Attewell, H. C.

Bing, G. H. C.

Burke, W. A.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Binns, J.

Callaghan, James

Austin, H. Lewis

Blackburn, A. R.

Carmichael, James

Awbery, S. S.

Blyton, W. R.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Ayles, W. H.

Boardman, H.

Champion, A. J.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Bottomley, A. G.

Chater, D.

Bacon, Miss A.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Baird, J.

Bramall, E. A.

Cluse, W. S.

Balfour, A.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Cobb, F. A.

Cocks, F. S.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Popplewell, E.

Collindridge, F.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Colman, Miss G. M.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Cook, T. F.

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

Proctor, W. T.

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

Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.

Pryde, D. J.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Jay, D. P. T.

Randall, H. E.

Cove, W. G.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Ranger, J.

Crawley, A.

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

Rankin, J.

Grossman, R. H. S.

Jenkins, R. H.

Reeves, J.

Cullen, Mrs.

Johnston, Douglas

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Daines, P.

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

Rhodes, H.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Richards, R.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Robens, A.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Keenan, W.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

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

Kendall, W. D.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Deer, G.

Kinley, J.

Royle, C.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Sargood, R.

Delargy, H. J.

Lang, G.

Scollan, T.

Diamond, J.

Lavers, S.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Dobbie, W.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Dodds, N. N.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Leonard, W.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Leslie, J. R.

Simmons, C. J.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Lever, N. H.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Dye, S.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Skinnard, F W

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lindgren, G. S.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Edelman, M.

Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

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

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

Lipson, D. L.

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

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Snow, J. W.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Logan, D. G.

Sorensen, R. W.

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Longden, F.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Lyne, A. W.

Sparks, J. A.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

McAdam, W.

Steele, T.

Ewart, R.

McEntee, V La T.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Fairhurst, F.

McGhee, H. G.

Stokes, R. R.

Farthing, W. J.

McGovern, J.

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

Fernyhough, E.

Mack, J. D.

Stubbs, A. E.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Field, Capt. W. J.

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

Swingler, S.

Follick, M.

McKinlay, A. S.

Sylvester, G. O.

Foot, M. M.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Symonds, A. L.

Forman, J. C.

McLeavy, F.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Freeman, J. (Watford)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Gibbins, J.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Gibson, C. W.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Thurtle, Ernest

Gilzean, A.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Tiffany, S.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Timmons, J.

Gooch, E. G.

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Tolley, L.

Goodrich, H. E.

Mayhew, C. P.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Granville, E. (Eye)

Medland, H. M.

Usborne, Henry

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Grey, C. F.

Mikardo, Ian

Viant, S. P.

Grierson, E.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Walker, G. H.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mitchison, G. R.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Monslow, W.

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

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Morley, R.

Warbey, W. N.

Gunter, R. J.

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

Watkins, T. E.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Watson, W. M.

Hale, Leslie

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

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Moyle, A.

Weitzman, D.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Murray, J. D.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Hardman, D. R.

Nally, W.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Hardy, E. A.

Naylor, T. E.

West, D. G.

Harrison, J.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

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

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

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

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

Haworth, J.

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

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Wigg, George

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Oldfield, W. H.

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

Hobson, C. R.

Oliver, G. H.

Wilkes, L.

Holman, P.

Orbach, M.

Wilkins, W. A.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Horabin, T. L.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Houghton, Douglas

Pannell, T. C.

Williams, D. J. (heath)

Hoy, J.

Parker, J.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

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

Parkin, B. T.

Williams, Ronalld (Wigan)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

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

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

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

Pearson, A.

Willis, E.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Perrins, W.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

2036

2037

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

Wyatt, W.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Wise, Major F. J.

Yates, V. F.

Woods, G. S.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Glyn, Sir R

Ponsonby, Col. C. E

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Prescott, Stanley

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Grimston, R. V.

Price-White, D.

Astor, Hon. M.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Barlow, Sir J.

Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Bowen, R.

Haughton, S. G.

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Bower, N.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Hope, Lord J.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

Ropner, Col. L.

Bullock, Capt. M.

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

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Butcher, H. W.

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

Sanderson, Sir F.

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

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Carson, E.

Keeling, E. H.

Scott, Lord W.

Challen, C.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Smithers, Sir W.

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

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Snadden, W. M.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Spence, H. R.

Davidson, Viscountess

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

De la Bère, R.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Digby, S. Wingfield

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Sutcliffe, H.

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

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Teeling, William

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Drayson, G. B.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Drewe, C.

MacLeod, J.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Touche, G. C.

Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Turton, R. H.

Duthie, W. S.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Eccles, D. M.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Vane, W. M. F.

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

Molson, A. H. E.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Erroll, F. J.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Fox, Sir G.

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

York, C.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

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

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

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Mr. Studholme and

Gammans, L. D.

Osborne, C.

Colonel Wheatley.

Gates, Maj E. E.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Bill read a Second time; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  Lords Reason for insisting on certain of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.
  The Lords insisted on their Amendments in
  Page 10, line 21, leave out "May" and insert "July";
  Page 10, line 22, leave out "fifty" and insert "fifty-one";
  Page 10, line 23, leave out "passing" and insert "coming into force";
  Page 11, line 11, leave out "May" and insert "July";
  Page 11, line 12, leave out "fifty" and insert "fifty-one", and
  Page 62, line 10, at end insert:
  "() This Act shall come into force on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty."
  for the following Reason:
  "Because they consider that the Bill should not come into operation until the electors have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it."
  4.5 p.m.
  The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): I beg to move, "That this House doth insist on its disagreement with the Lords in the said Amendments."
  As the House is aware, there are on the Order Paper certain Amendments which the Government propose to move in lieu. I think it would be for the general convenience if, in dealing with this Motion, I explained the reasons and the effects of the Amendments which the Government propose to move, as they are linked with this Motion and form one pattern which must be considered as a whole.
  To enable the House to appreciate the purport of the proposals which the Government are now putting forward it is necessary to look at the position when the Bill was first brought before the House more than a year ago. It was then reasonable and proper to assume that the passage of this Bill through the two Houses of Parliament would be similar to the passage of the previous nationalisation Measures set out in "Let Us Face the Future" at the 1945 election.
  2040
  We assumed, therefore, that the Bill would emerge from the Commons some time in the early summer of this year and from the House of Lords at the end of July; and that it would then, modified and amended as a result of the scrutiny of both Houses, obtain the Royal Assent before the Summer Recess. In conformity with this time-table the Bill proposed that the general date of transfer—that is, the day on which the securities of the companies to be taken over would vest in the newly established corporation—should be 1st May, 1950, or such later date, within 18 months of the Royal Assent, as the Minister might decide.
  The House knows what actually happened. When the Bill went to the Lords a series of Amendments was moved by the Opposition, most of which were rejected by this House when they came here for consideration. On the return of the Bill to the Lords, the Opposition accepted our rejections, save for two groups of Amendments. One of these made the whole Bill inoperative until 1st October, 1950, and the other made the date of transfer not before 1st July, 1951. Opposition spokesmen made it quite clear that they are determined to stand by the principle embodied in these Amendments, and the formal reason given by the Lords for their action is:
  "Because they consider that the Bill should not come into operation until the electors have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it."
  Captain Crookshank: What was the date of that?
  Mr. Strauss: I have not the actual date. I imagine it was before the House of Lords in July of this year.
  I do not intend on this occasion to repeat at any length the arguments used by myself and my colleagues on a previous occasion denouncing the action taken by their Lordships' House. I will only say that in our opinion it is contrary to all principles of democratic government—
  Mr. Churchill: To allow other people to say what they think?
  Mr. Strauss: It is contrary to all principles of democratic government that an hereditary and unrepresentative House of Lords should use its powers to prevent a Measure already approved by the

  2041
  electorate and passed by the Commons, and which the Government of the day considers essential for the fulfilment of its policy of full employment and industrial prosperity, being carried into effect until the electorate have pronounced upon it a second time. This attitude is, in our opinion, all the more indefensible in that every by-election result, without exception, shows that those who elected the Government, that is the majority of our people, continue to endorse its economic and social record. As the House is aware, the Government have taken the necessary steps to lessen the opportunities of the House of Lords repeating this conduct in any future Parliament.
  But, however much we believe that the present behaviour of the House of Lords violates the democratic principles of our country, however much we may deplore their action, we now are forced to face realistically the effects of that action. The main effect is that, whatever happens, 1st May, 1950, can no longer be the date of transfer, for if this Bill becomes law early next year under the new Parliament Act, we would have to rush the preliminary steps required to make 1st May the take-over date, so as seriously to jeopardise the successful launching of our scheme of public ownership. That we will not do, as we are determined to make a success of this operation. The Government, therefore, consider that it would be misleading to retain 1st May in the Bill, and we therefore propose to delete it.
  We cannot, however, advise this House to accept either of the groups of Amendments on which the Lords are standing. Our Amendments on the Order Paper are alternatives, which, while going a long way to meet the Lords objective of delay, do preserve certain features of the Bill to which we attach importance. Foremost among these is that the Bill would immediately become an Act, and the various provisions dealing with the disposal of iron and steel works and the dissipation of assets prior to the date of transfer would become law forthwith. These provisions, although difficult and complicated, have been well understood by the steel companies concerned, and we want to avoid the uncertainty and confusion which might ensue if these provisions did not become operative for another 10 or 11 months.
  2042
  In this connection, I should like to repeat what I said on an earlier occasion, namely, that I am prepared to consider giving formal approvals to the companies for transactions which might otherwise render the directors liable to the retrospective provisions in Part II of the Bill. Within the last 12 months the companies concerned have, as I expected, acted with a real sense of responsibility in putting their submissions to me, and I shall in future, as in the past, deal with these expeditiously.
  Now I come to the Lords Amendment which makes the general date of transfer 1st July, 1951. We are not prepared to accept this, as we consider a delay of this length is wholly undesirable and, indeed, pointless. Our alternative proposal is 1st January, 1951, or such date within the following 12 months as the Minister may determine.
  The other Amendment carried by the Lords, that the Bill shall not operate before 1st October, 1950, not only goes beyond what is necessary to meet the House of Lords' purpose, but is technically defective. The Bill had been drawn on the basis that it would come into operation on the day of the Royal Assent, and to introduce now another operating date would make nonsense of the Bill, unless a considerable number of consequential Amendments were added, and even then the Bill would be untidy and confusing.
  4.15 p.m.
  The main point, however, is that under the Lords Amendment 1st October, 1950, would be the first permissive operative date for all the provisions of the Bill. According to the alternative Amendment which the Government propose, 1st October, 1950, would be the first permitted date only of the formal establishment of the Corporation, while the other provisions would come into effect the moment the Royal Assent is obtained. In point of fact, the time required for taking the necessary preliminary steps for setting up the Corporation would, in any event, make this difficult much before that date.
  There is one further matter. We are bound to have an Election by the middle of next year, and in an atmosphere of political tension and uncertainty it would plainly be unwise to proceed now with the selection of individuals to serve on the Corporation. Men

  2043
  who may well be best suited for this responsible task might understandably be reluctant to commit themselves to accepting such a position, and throw up their present jobs, as long as they think there is a possibility, however remote, that the Corporation may not, after all, be established.
  The Government have therefore decided not to make any approaches, formal or informal, inviting individuals to become members of the Corporation, until we have emerged into the calmer atmosphere that will follow the election of the new Parliament. I think that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the success of the nationalised industry will depend to a considerable extent on the calibre of the men serving on the Corporation, and that it would be folly to rush our selection of these people unnecessarily.
  To sum up, the Government's attitude to the Lords Amendments is this: We are asking this House to accept the realities of a situation, created by the Lords, and which we are powerless to alter. The House of Lords is insisting that the date on which this Bill is to operate shall be postponed. We, on our side, are more convinced than ever of the need of this great reform in overcoming the economic difficulties which are bound to face our country during the coming years, and we are determined that this Measure shall come into operation as soon as possible.
  We have this choice open to us. We can force this Bill through by the use of the Parliament Act. Or we can make Amendments ourselves, such as we are doing today, bringing the date of operation far nearer than is proposed in their Lordships' Amendments. Whichever course we take, the date of transfer of the steel companies' securities to public ownership will, in fact, be about the same. There are, however, advantages, as I have stated, in giving the Bill the full force of law quickly, as then some of its important provisions will come into immediate operation.
  It is now for their Lordships to decide what they will do. If they reject our Amendments, then the powers of the new Parliament Act will have to be invoked. If they accept our proposals, this Bill, undamaged in its structure and effectiveness,
  2044
  will be on the Statute Book immediately, with many of its essential provisions in force, and the whole ready to be implemented in full when a Labour majority is re-elected next year. For these reasons, I commend the Government's proposals to this House.
  Mr. Churchill: I am sure that no Member of the House, wherever he may sit or whatever views he may hold about the merits of the particular topic now before us, will have envied the right hon. Gentleman in the task which it has fallen to his lot to fulfil. About a fortnight ago we were informed that the Government wished to end the deadlock between the two Houses on the Iron and Steel Bill by accepting in principle the House of Lords Amendment delaying its operation until after the people have been consulted. There was no question of a bargain or a compromise. The Government asked a question and the Leader of the House of Lords, after consulting with some of his friends in both Houses, gave the answer. The answer was to the effect that if the Amendment the Lords were insisting upon were accepted in principle and substance he, Lord Salisbury, would advise the House of Lords to accept it, even though the form was slightly altered.
  We have given most careful consideration to the differences in form between the Lords Amendment and that which is now proposed to us this afternoon by the Socialist Government, and we are satisfied that for all practical purposes they mean the same thing. It would hardly have been in accordance with the manner in which the House of Lords discharges its constitutional duties under the Parliament Act settlement of 35 years ago for the Conservative Leader in the House of Lords to advise them to take advantage of minor differences in form in order to reject what is the undoubted acceptance by the Commons of their contention.
  It is not for us here this afternoon to forecast what the action of the Lords will be, but in this House we shall not oppose this series of alterations. We shall not oppose them, and I should think it very likely that a similar course will be adopted in another place.
  Of course, if the House of Lords accept this Amendment, and we here do not vote against it, it in no way alters

  2045
  our opposition to the nationalisation of steel. On the contrary, we are very glad that the issue should be presented in so clear-cut a form to the electors. We are content with that; it is almost a referendum on the issue. Should we be returned to power—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Wishful thinking."] Well, one has to take all things into consideration. Not to do so would be to throw doubts upon the freedom of elections and the intelligence of the electors. Should we be returned to power one of our first steps will be to expunge from the Statute Book this wanton, wasteful and partisan Measure, in which many of those associated with it do not, in their hearts, believe, and which strikes this country a bitter blow at a bad time.
  It will be one of our first steps to remove it from the Statute Book, and to allow the steel industry to continue its splendid career—to which tribute has even been paid this afternoon—of ever-improving production and efficiency, with unbroken good will between employers and employed, a record almost in this country and almost in the steel industries of the world—without being dragged into party politics by the fanatics of obsolete and discredited Socialistic doctrines. We are very glad that this should be so.
  The actual matter before us does not seem to me to be of major importance either way. I rather agree with some sentences which fell from the right hon. Gentleman. Some say that if the Government had not bowed, as they have done, to the wishes of the Lords they would not be able to have an election as early as January or February and yet pass the Steel Bill, even under their new Parliament Act. What they are now gaining, it is said, is an opportunity of an early election without what is called losing the Steel Bill. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman's speech has fully admitted, under the Parliament Act—and I am speaking of the great Parliament Act—
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yours.
  Mr. Churchill: If the right hon. Gentleman was ever responsible for social legislation which, 35 years later, he could speak of with as calm a conscience as I can about a Parliament Act which has become the foundation of our political system, although much fought at the time—if he has anything like that to show in
  2046
  his records, he will have more to be proud of than anything else that can be found in his past career.
  4.30 p.m.
  What the Government are gaining by this, it is said, is that they can have an Election without losing the Steel Bill. But, as I was saying, under the Parliament Act if they had an early Election, and won that Election, the Bill would still pass into law with a very few weeks' delay. There would be nothing to affect the general march of events. If this same Bill is renewed after the Election, it can resume its progress under the original Parliament Act, a priori under this one, from the point which it had reached in the previous Parliament. All that the Government would have lost would be the pleasure of saying, "We have fulfilled our programme. We have given you the full dose. Would you like another dose?" That is really not controversial. It is in their power to say that anyhow.
  It cannot, therefore, be argued that the acceptance of this Amendment has affected in any way the date of the General Election. It is not within our power to do so, and where there is no power there can be no responsibility. However, the question of the date of the General Election, especially if the Steel Bill is out of the way, is undoubtedly in all our minds this afternoon, and it seems to me the only explanation for the tactics which the Socialist Government have pursued. To us on this side of the House as a party the date is a matter of indifference. In fact, however, party strife will rage in this land in its most active form until the votes are counted.
  I am glad to see the Prime Minister in his place. [Interruption.] It is a genuine pleasure, and I am not making any comparison. I hope he has fully recovered from his entertainment at the Mansion House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is not in Order to say "shame," because it is not a Parliamentary remark, but I do not mind because the shame applies to a colleague of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who is not here this afternoon sitting on the Front Bench. I hope it is not controversial for me to say that I am very glad to see the Prime Minister in his place. I am always glad to see him in his place.

  2047
  In my view it is his duty in all the present circumstances to curtail and limit the uncertainty of when the General Election will come as much as possible. It may flatter his vanity and that of his colleagues to walk around with an air of superior knowledge on a matter which affects so very many people, but against this somewhat feeble satisfaction must be set the inconvenience to the public and the hindrance to our wealth-producing energies involved in a prolonged period of purposeless uncertainty. I suppose that the plans of scores of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people in their daily lives are affected by not knowing when this inevitably approaching event will ocur.
  Mr. Warbey: On a point of Order. May I ask what is the relevance of this discussion on the date of the election to the subject matter before us this afternoon?
  Mr. Speaker: The reason the Lords gave for insisting on their Amendment was that the electors should have an opportunity of expressing their views on the matter. Therefore, it seems to me that the question of when the electors will express their opinion is in Order.
  Mr. Warbey: But is it in Order to discuss when the General Election should be held?
  Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that the whole range of that was in Order on this Debate.
  Mr. Churchill: As I was saying, I believe that very great damage and injury will be done by keeping this uncertainty going unnecessarily. If there is any serious public or even party reason for keeping everyone on tenterhooks and tiptoe it ought to be stated, but there is none apparently, and with some experience of these matters it seems to me a very wrong thing to hamper and injure the national life in this way. If there were a party advantage that would be sensible, but I cannot see that what has been done is an advantage; it is a great national detriment. Therefore it seems to me, as I said a month ago, that the Government would be consulting the national interest, and possibly even their own, by taking the nation into their confidence at the earliest moment. Everyone knows this
  2048
  Parliament is dead, and that on the subject of this Steel Bill a new Parliament would have a much better chance of getting us out of our dangers and difficulties.
  All these manœuvres, which I understand is the term used about this Measure, are an example of the low-grade tactical motives which are the key to Government policy. The Measure mutilating—I should perhaps not use the word "mutilating"—altering the Parliament Act was forced through the day before yesterday by the Government majority. I am not reflecting on the Measure. I am only speaking about the circumstances in which it was passed before it was known to the House that the Government admit, as they have admitted today, that the view of the House of Lords is right—namely, that the Steel Bill should not become law until it has been submitted to the judgment of the electors.
  Why then, we might well ask, should the House of Lords be punished and maltreated for being right? Why then, we might have asked, should they be stripped of part of their functions for having used them so wisely and so well. How can the Government have the face to recognise the justice of the Lords' demand that the people should be consulted on the nationalisation of steel—a monstrous tyranny that such a demand should be made, that the people should be consulted on the subject—when at the same time almost on the very day they strike a crippling blow at the powers of the Lords under the Parliament Act, which gives them full power to pass this Bill at approximately the same date?
  Why should it be necessary to pass into law the Bill for amending the Parliament Act, which contains a special retro-active Clause for the express purpose of carrying the nationalisation of steel into law before the electors can pronounce upon it, when, after all, it is admitted that they ought to have such an opportunity? I do not often quote to the House the leading article of "The Times" but I noticed this morning this sentence:
  "Judged merely as an episode in Parliamentary tactics, this cynical and over-ingenious business has been badly botched."
  However, out of evil often comes good. I am glad that the House of Lords should once again have vindicated their wisdom and sagacity. Just as on the question of

  2049
  the abolition of capital punishment they prevented an act of folly and voiced the opinion of the vast majority of the nation, so now they render a service in making sure that the people are effectively consulted on the proposals to nationalise steel before those proposals can come into operation. That is the position which they have taken up and which we on this side take up, and to which the Socialist Government have thought it right to bow and to submit. No reasons have been given to us which explain the Government's action other than those of party convenience. I say—and I leave the matter here—that we take our stand on the position that it is not the function of the House of Lords to govern the people but to make sure that the people have the right to govern themselves.
  Mr. Maclay: Whatever we may think of the Minister's reasons for the decision that he has reached on the dates, there is at least one further question that we are entitled to ask him before we agree to the dates that the Government are proposing. There is one further step that the Government should take in common honesty. [Interruption.] I must ask whether the Minister will be good enough to listen to my speech. I am about to put certain suggestions to him. I know that he is always courteous about these matters and I know that he will not mind my asking him to listen to this part of my speech. I was saying that before we agreed to the dates proposed by the Government, there are further steps which we think it reasonable to ask him to take before this issue goes to the country. We may have our own views on the reasons which the Minister has for putting forward these alterations, but we are glad that the country will have a chance of expressing an opinion upon them.
  In his statement the Minister referred to the country having already given a mandate. I want to return to that point. Surely the only proper thing for the Government to do now, in putting the Bill before the country again, is to admit that the charges made in 1945 were not correct. The only honest thing that the Government can possibly do is to put their proposals before the country on these grounds: "We, the Labour Party, are a Socialist Party. Therefore we are going to nationalise the steel industry."
  2050
  Let them say it frankly like that, and admit that their proposals have nothing to do with the efficiency or the conduct of the industry. Let them, in fact, withdraw completely the charges made in "Let us Face the Future" after practically a year's Debate has shown how completely unfounded those charges were and how completely refuted they have been at every stage of our Debates, especially during the Committee stage and the Third Reading.
  Then the country will at least be able to make a real, clear-cut decision on the matter and—[Interruption.] Will the Minister's back benchers kindly support my plea that it should be made dead clear in the Labour Party's programme that this Bill is brought forward only because hon. Members want to nationalise and that it has nothing to do with the efficiency of the industry or with the other charges that were made? If they will do that, at least something really honest will have been put to the country.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Daines: Who is the hon. Member to complain about political labels when he and his hon. Friends, while calling themselves Liberals, are in fact more Conservative than the Conservatives?
  Mr. Maclay: I think Mr. Speaker would show a certain reluctance to my following up that remark. Upon a matter which is of such profound importance to the Liberalism of this country. I am only too delighted to be working as closely as possible with the Conservative Party in every possible way.
  Mr. S. N. Evans: I can assure the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) that there will be no attempt on the part of the Labour Party to burke the issue at the next General Election. We wish to nationalise steel on grounds that are political, social and economic. We shall certainly not dodge the political aspect of the matter. The Labour Party have always said that they believe that basic industries such as the iron and steel industry, upon which so many other industries depend, should belong to the people and should be operated on behalf of the people. There will be no running away from that position, either in Wednesbury or anywhere else.
  Mr. Maclay: If the hon. Member agrees with me on that point, will he bring it home to his Front Bench that they should withdraw publicly and completely the charges made in "Let us Face the Future"?
  Hon. Members: Nonsense.
  Mr. S. N. Evans: The hon. Member is talking rubbish. I dare say that it would be out of Order for me to go into all the arguments that were adduced in support of the Bill upon Second Reading and subsequently. Those points have been discussed in the country during the last two or three years and the country will know precisely where the Government and the Labour Party stand in the matter. They will need no further instruction. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said that it was not for him to anticipate what action the other House would take, but that seemed to me to show some misunderstanding, having regard to recent developments. It seemed to me that he had his card marked. The nationalisation of steel is dictated on commonsense grounds. I do not think it has anything to do with the Election. I do not think that the Labour Party and the Labour Government mind when the Election is. I believe that the date will be selected in the best interests of the country, which will be the only consideration. In Wednesbury, at any rate, we are quite ready at any time. We only await the word "Go." [Laughter.] I have a lively sense of humour. May I share the joke?
  The compromise between the two Houses will be, if accepted, in the best traditions of English Parliamentary democracy. I welcome the step that the Government have taken. It was always clear to me that until we had a General Election on this issue we should not get the type of person to stand for these boards that we would like to get. A man would not be likely to jeopardise his future economic prospects by offering to drive a car which might never start. The electors are the final arbiters in this matter.
  Sometimes the charge is made that there is something improper in the Labour Government having left this big matter of steel nationalisation to the end of its Parliamentary programme. I should have thought that was something which
  2052
  reacted to their credit, because this is the major Measure of nationalisation to come before this Parliament. The electors are being given a fresh look at it, and if they like to change their minds, they are at liberty to do so. That is a highly democratic attitude for the Government to take.
  I do not think there is very much more that can be said about the Bill. I welcome the compromise. It is as I say in the best tradition of British Parliamentary democracy, and we await with the utmost confidence the outcome of the General Election about which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford has had so much to say.
  Mr. Peter Roberts: The Minister has today been faced with a change of plans and he has been trying to excuse Socialist planning by referring to his ideas of a year ago. He began by saying that a year ago he could not have forecast the position in which we now find ourselves because he did not know what the other place would do. The Minister made a very different statement on 25th July last when he was able to see what the other place was doing. It is because of that statement that I find difficulty in following his argument this afternoon about what happened a year ago. On 25th July he said that the proposal then was
  "An irresponsible action, and likely to bring about most severe damage to the iron and steel industry itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1949; Vol. 467, c. 2158.]
  I want to ask the Minister this question. If the bringing back of the date by six months is now accepted by him; how can it have been that "most severe damage" would have been done to the iron and steel industry if the operation were brought in six months later?
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I was referring to damage caused by the delay forced upon us by the House of Lords. That damage is to some extent lessened, but it is still there, by having a delay six months shorter. We have no power whatsoever to fight the decision of the Lords in bringing about some delay.
  Mr. Roberts: I hope that whoever replies to the Debate will elaborate that. I cannot see how most severe damage could be done in July and not be done in January. In fact, I do not believe the

  2053
  Minister's first statement, and I do not believe that he really expects us to take this argument seriously.
  My second point is that on this side of the House, and in Sheffield, we feel some relief. We feel that we have been let off a certain amount of what might have been party spite in bringing this change into operation possibly two or three weeks before a General Election. I can tell the Minister that there was a great deal of perturbation in the Midlands that this change might have been made two or three weeks before the General Election was held and that the whole industry would have been upset.
  My third point is that there is still a cloud over the industry. It has been discussed this afternoon. It is the cloud of the General Election. I do not believe it is good for any industry, whatever it may be, to have its structure made the result of a political battle. At the moment the industry is creating great records and is doing extremely well. Now we are to be faced with this issue at the General Election. All right, Let us face it, debate it and decide upon it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who often, in my view, speaks more sense than the Minister, said, in July last:
  "Whenever that election comes we, as good Socialists, as good democrats, will gladly abide by the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1949; Vol. 467, c. 2207–8.]
  The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) also said that the electors are the final arbiters. I want to put this question to hon. Gentlemen opposite. When at the next General Election the vote goes against them and this Bill is expunged, will they do what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said and gladly accept that as the result of the ballot box, or are we to be faced again in the years which come after with a political battle over the body of this industry? I ask whoever replies to the Debate to say whether he accepts what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said and what the hon. Member for Wednesbury has said.
  Mr. S. N. Evans: I gladly give that undertaking. We shall accept the verdict of the electors. If we lose, we should not accept it gladly, but we should accept it. Will the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the steelmasters, give
  2054
  the same undertaking that he asked from us?
  Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I am sure I am allowed to answer in my own way. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the document, "The Right Road for Britain," an extremely good document of which hon. Members opposite seem to be afraid. I am going to read it. What is our attitude to this problem? We say this with regard to nationalisation:
  "We refuse at this time of economic danger to aggravate industrial discord. We must ensure that those in control of vital industries are not persistently distracted from their task of management by watching the political weal her."
  That is the answer to the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If we are returned at the General Election, the issue having been whether or not the iron and steel industry shall be nationalised, and the country having decided that it shall not be nationalised then we shall expunge it from the record. With regard to other nationalised industries, such as coal, gas and electricity—
  Mr. Chetwynd: What would happen if the verdict went the other way?
  Mr. Roberts: With regard to the other industries, we have said that at this time we are not prepared—
  Mr. Follick: We are talking about steel.
  Mr. Roberts: —to aggravate industrial discord.
  Mr. Carmichael: May I—?
  Mr. Roberts: No, this point must be clear to hon. Members opposite. We say that if the General Election goes against the present Government, the decision will be not to nationalise. That will be the decision of the electors it will be the result of the ballot box. All right. We shall obviously abide by that. What I am asking hon. Members opposite is whether if that takes place they also will abide by the result, or are we to see this great industry, which is doing a wonderful job in the interests of the nation, an industry in which we already have machinery for arbitration in regard to management and labour and in which we already have Government control over

  2055
  price and location, completely upset by political discord? I ask that question of whoever is to reply. It is of vital importance to the future of the country. Will hon. Members opposite abide by the General Election result or will they not?
  Mr. Norman Smith: The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) made a most extraordinary statement to the effect that a great industry like this ought, not to go through the experience of having its structure made the verdict of a General Election.
  Mr. P. Roberts: No.
  Mr. Smith: It will be on record in HANSARD tomorrow, and the House and the public will be able to judge. That was a most amazing claim.
  Mr. Roberts: I did not say that. The hon. Member must not make a speech on something which is not correct. The whole issue of the Debate is that it must go to the General Election. What I ask is that, once it has been to the General Election, both parties must decide to abide by the result.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Smith: What right has the hon. Member to assume that we on this side of the House do not abide by the results of the General Election? In between the wars we accepted the results of one fraudulent General Election after another—Post Office savings, the Zinoviev letter, "Hang the Kaiser," and goodness knows what else.
  On the question of the iron and steel industry, we ask for nothing better than to comply with what is the evident wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to fight the election on this issue. It is a most extraordinary coincidence, a most amazing piece of propinquity, that the hon. Member sitting next to me on this bench is my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). He will have no difficulty in making this an issue in his constituency, and all of us will make quite certain that the electors in our constituencies know all about what happened about Jarrow between the two wars, when the steel masters dictated what should happen to the industry—a circumstance, incidentally, which might have brought Great
  2056
  Britain to defeat in the war following, when we were short of steel.
  Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: Would the hon. Gentleman also tell the electorate that the plan of development in the steel industry was agreed by the Government?
  Mr. Smith: The Tory Government of that day?
  Mr. Lyttelton: This Government.
  Mr. Smith: I am speaking of what happened in Jarrow in 1936, and no one knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman. He knows all about what happened to the steel industry—
  Mr. Lyttelton: Answer my question.
  Mr. Smith: He knows the use the steel industry made of tariff protection in the thirties. He knows how the steel masters prohibited—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): We are not discussing the merits or demerits of the Iron and Steel Bill or the steel industry on this Motion.
  Mr. Smith: Very well, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I can assure the House that the Labour candidates in the coming election will be ready to discuss the merits of the steel industry and of the steel masters. Of course the question raised by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) was purely hypothetical. There is not any doubt about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) said they are ready in his constituency. So are we ready in mine. We do not care if it comes next week. We are ready for it, and steel will be one of the main issues.
  Mr. Erroll: I intervene only to put one or two points to the Minister arising out of his own speech. I was interested to notice his reference to the speed with which he approved items of expenditure submitted to him by boards of steel companies in order to safeguard them from possible consequences of the distribution of assets Clauses in the Bill. It was clearly brought out during the Committee stage of the Bill that the approval of the Minister was not any definite protection for the boards of directors concerned and that proceedings could still be taken by

  2057
  the Minister even though he had previously given his approval.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. Member is mistaken. Prior approval given by me before the Bill comes into operation is complete protection for the company against any retrospective action which might fall upon the company.
  Mr. Erroll: For the company?
  Mr. Strauss: Yes, and for the directors.
  Mr. Erroll: It is satisfactory to obtain that assurance. Then the Minister said that no approaches had been made to individuals to join the Steel Corporation, whereas I distinctly remember during the Committee stage of the Bill that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to unofficial approaches which had been made and which had yielded satisfactory results. He stated that a number of individuals were willing to join and that we were mistaken in thinking that there would be considerable difficulty in finding them.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Jack Jones): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary never at any time said that approaches had been made to any individual connected with the iron and steel industry. I happen to have a retentive memory, which is useful in this House. What I said was that I knew for a fact that when approaches were made there were people at high levels who were good patriots and who would be glad to serve this Bill and this country.
  Mr. Erroll: It is satisfactory to note that no approaches have been made. That clears up another doubt which we had entertained. The Minister also referred to the Bill as safeguarding employment in the iron and steel industry, but of course there is no guarantee that employment will be secure just because an industry is nationalised, and it is most important that we should all realise that it is an empty pledge which cannot be honoured.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss indicated dissent.
  Mr. Erroll: In his opening remarks the Minister undoubtedly did—
  Mr. Strauss: Nothing of the sort.
  Mr. Erroll: Finally, the Minister was extremely confident about the outcome of
  2058
  the next Election, and I would like to remind him that pride comes before a fall.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am opposed to this Motion and my colleague and I will divide the House on it. It is about time there was some plain speaking on this question because the Steel Bill is now finished. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) said that this compromise was in the best traditions of British democracy. How did it take him so long to find that out? How is it that month after month those who were sponsoring the Steel Bill maintained that it had already received a mandate from the electorate and that nothing would change their attitude on it? How did it come about that this change now represents the best traditions of British democracy?
  Mr. George Porter: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gallacher: I have hardly started—
  Mr. Porter: Is it not the Marxist philosophy to determine action according to the circumstances existing at the moment?
  Mr. Gallacher: It is quite correct that we must consider the circumstances.
  Mr. Piratin: And the hon. Member had better listen.
  Mr. Gallacher: That is the trouble, that decisions are made and reported to hon. Members on this side of the House, and there is never any question of considering them—they are just accepted. It is about time that hon. Members on this side of the House, who claim to be Socialists and leaders of the working class, gave some consideration to the circumstances. Did the Government consult the convenience of the steel workers? Were the steel workers brought into this compromise with the House of Lords? Ask the steel workers what they think about it. We know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is a member of the Government now and, as a member of the Government, he has great responsibility for increasing hours of labour and increasing production. That is entirely different from consulting the steel workers in the industry.
  Mr. J. Jones: I can give the hon. Member and this House the assurance that the Amendments put forward by the Government will give the steel workers all the satisfaction they require.
  Mr. Gallacher: The steel workers have never been given any information of any sort.
  Mr. Jones: That is what you think.
  Mr. Gallacher: They will be, after it is a fait accompli. Is that in the best traditions of British democracy? What is really going on? What is happening in Debate after Debate in this House? We find more and more agreement between the two sides on important issues or, if there is disagreement, it is on a minor matter. If it is in Order, let me illustrate my meaning by quoting what happened on devaluation. The Government had down a Motion:
  "That this House approves the action taken … at Washington. …"
  "blah, blah, blab," and that there was confidence in the Government. The Opposition Motion said that the House, while approving the decisions taken at Washington, "blah, blah, blah," had no confidence in the Government. On the principle, they are agreed; on the "blab blah," they disagree. It was the same with the economy cuts. One lot went into this Lobby, and the other lot went into the other Lobby, but they were all agreed on the cuts. In the present case, both sides are agreed on the Lords Amendment—such beautiful amity.
  Mr. Chetwynd: But disagreeing on the result.
  Mr. Gallacher: Such an example of brotherhood should make us all very humble unless, of course, we happen to be Socialists and realise what is going on.
  Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member is not a Socialist.
  Mr. P. Roberts: He is a totalitarian.
  Mr. Piratin: Hon. Members opposite would not understand.
  Mr. Gallacher: The only economic basis on which Communist society can be built is the economic basis known as Socialism. If hon. Members are too stupid not to know that, it is unfortunate, but I am not allowed by Mr. Deputy-Speaker
  2060
  to give them the necessary education. They should try to grasp that one essential thought and realise that every Communist must be a Socialist and every Socialist must be a Communist.
  Let us come back to the question of the Lords Amendment. I have said that the Steel Bill has gone. The circumstances associated with this decision ought to be clear to everyone. The other night on the radio a gentleman named—
  Mr. Fairhurst rose—
  Mr. Gallacher: —a gentleman named Bertrand Russell said he would rather have war than have Russian commissars coming here.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member is going far beyond the terms of the Motion which is at present before the House.
  Mr. Gallacher: But the Russian commissars would have difficulty in getting in here because of the American commissars already in this country and interested in steel.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That question cannot possibly arise on a Motion disagreeing with their Lordships' Amendment.
  Mr. Gallacher: I think it can, because the Lords' Amendments—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Fortunately or unfortunately, I am the judge.
  Mr. Gallacher: I will accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The important thing is that we must view the Amendment from the point of view of the circumstances that have arisen and which have determined the Government to make this change. What are those circumstances? Not the elections, as has been said by so many hon. Members, but the fact that a decision was taken at Washington that American capital has to be encouraged to find investment in this country and that American capital is particularly interested in steel. Anyone who watches events in Germany and France will see the amount of American capital which is being invested there; how the steel output of those two countries is being integrated, and how the Americans are determined to integrate the steel of this country with that of Germany and France. Those are the circumstances

  2061
  which have determined the Government to make this change. Mr. Hoffman was not "kidding" when he said that the economy of this country must be integrated with the economy of the rest of Western Europe.
  5.15 p.m.
  Is not steel one of the most important factors in our economy? Is not the biggest drive imaginable now taking place to develop and extend the steel plants of Germany and to integrate them with those of France through American capital; and is not American capital coming into this country? Are the Members of this House going to play with this question until they find the country completely under the financial domination of a foreign Power? That is what is going on. It is no use hon. Members trying to dodge it, because so many to whom I have spoken in the Lobbies have expressed to me their feelings of disturbance at what is happening. It is about time they were thinking of their constituents and of the people of this country, and getting up and speaking openly about what is going on.
  I remember, in the early days of this Parliament, hon. Members standing up here and boldly singing "The Red Flag." Why should they today be coming with the white flag before the House of Lords and before the other side? I ask hon. Members—
  Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Give it to them Willie.
  Mr. Tiffany: Is this the united front?
  Mr. Piratin: No, the united front is there, below the Gangway.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am prepared, with the sanction of Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to give a rendering of "The Red Flag" but I am afraid that, with the spirit which now exists on this side of the House, it would be a solo or, at best, a duet, which is very unfortunate.
  The important and very serious thing to be understood about this question is that the Government's changed decision has been dictated not by common sense, as the hon. Member for Wednesbury said but by America—[Interruption.] Yes.
  Mr. Shackleton: That is not true.
  Mr. Gallcher: Does the Minister deny that Mr. Hoffman has declared that our economy must be integrated with that of the rest of Western Europe? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, said, "No," but the Chancellor said "No" to devaluation, and then said "Yes" when the pressure became strong enough. The pressure is on now in connection with steel, and America—I challenge the Minister to answer this—with their control of German and French steel, can put British steel out of business if British steel does not integrate. Will the Minister deny that?
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I will certainly deny it.
  Mr. Gallacher: It would be permissible for me to produce, as can easily be produced, the capacity of German steel integrated, as it is going to be integrated, with French steel, and to show as a result of that integration, the amount of steel that can be produced after the new developments which have taken place, and the utter impossibility of carrying on to full capacity in this country except under the domination of America and with an industry integrated with that of Germany and France.
  I want it to be clearly understood that some of us, at any rate, understand what is behind the Amendment. This is not a simple thing. It means the death of the Steel Bill. I do not care how many elections may take place; this means the death of the Bill. If any Members on this side still retain any belief in Socialism, still desire to represent the best interests of the working class, and are against the Tories of this country and of America, they will support us in our opposition to the Amendment.
  In the book I wrote, "The Rolling of the Thunder," I said at the conclusion, that following the Election, the Labour Government would have to make an agreement with the Communists or capitulate to the Tories. The capitulation is here. They have capitulated to the Tories in this country and to the Tories in America, and this Amendment is the final demonstration of the depth to which they have fallen. I ask any hon. Member on this side of the House who still desires to speak for the working class against the Tories here and against the Tories in America, or who desire an

  2063
  advance towards Socialism, to assist us in opposition to this Amendment.
  Mr. Harold Roberts: One must always have some sympathy with a man who sighs for the better days that have gone. I feel that sympathy for the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) in his desire that "The Red Flag" should be sung. Those things were very appropriate to the mass hysteria of 1945, but are quite inappropriate to the disillusion of 1949. The utterances of the hon. Member cannot always be very pleasing to hon. Members opposite and one is always reminded of that rather unkind remark of Mr. Bernard Shaw, when he was asked to define a Communist, "A Communist is a Socialist who is in earnest."
  I will say something which is beyond controversy. There were two ways of working at the steel problem. One was to say that, as it was mentioned in "Let us Face the Future," it was definitely a part of the Government's programme for a popular mandate for it was given in 1945, and that it was wrong, therefore, and improper for another place to attempt to challenge that verdict or to force the matter again before the electorate. The other possible viewpoint, which found favour with the other place, was that it is true that in general terms steel was mentioned in 1945, but that not every jot or tittle could be taken to be within the mandate of the electorate and that, therefore, this matter should go before the public again at an election.
  Those were the possible viewpoints. Judging by the bellicose utterances we have heard this afternoon from the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) and the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith), their towns are planning to have a conflict on the point and must be delighted at the conflict over another place. But that is not the view of the responsible Minister. The responsible Minister made a powerful speech this afternoon pointing out the outrageous impropriety of the action of another place. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, one would think so. I would agree with the hon. Member that it was a very fine performance. But the difficulty is that, having proved his case, he says, "Very well now, they are such naughty people we will give way
  2064
  to them"; because that is what it means. It means that the noble Lords are to have their way. As I happen to agree with them on the point and to think they are right and the Minister is wrong, I am not complaining, but I am pointing out that the Government have placed themselves in a position of intolerable humiliation.
  Only a day or two ago the Chancellor—not of the Exchequer but of the Duchy of Lancaster—was apparently living in the past, some 40 years back, and quoting from speeches made at that time which, he said, were still appropriate. He spoke in terms of great contempt of the intellect, personnel and pretensions of another place, but only two days afterwards we are told that these pretensions are to be given in to. Why? Because, apparently, on a little technical point, when the Bill was drafted no one ever thought that the noble Lords might be difficult about it and, on the assumption that everything would be all right, the 1st April, 1950, was put in as the date.
  I must remind hon. Members that some of us have memories, perhaps not quite of the kind possessed by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but reasonably good. We have not forgotten the Debate in May, or June, 1946, on this matter. Nor have we forgotten the arrogant and bullying attitude then taken up, not by the Minister, but by the Leader of the House, with the intimation that Conservatives did not know what was coming to them and that if they dared to obstruct and thwart the coming Bill, dreadful things would happen. The veiled threat to the other place was there all right, but now we are told that it was brought in on the amiable assumption that noble Lords would be docile. It was quite apparent a few months ago that they would not be docile. Why was the situation not recognised then and why is the matter altered at the eleventh hour? Was it through blundering? There was a good deal of that, but, generally speaking, I think it was because of gambling on the situation and of inability to plan either way, for which this Ministry of planners is so conspicuous.
  We have to remember that for the last three months the Government have been preoccupied not only with the important task of saving the country, but also with the far more important task

  2065
  of winning, if they can, the forthcoming election. Everything has to be viewed in the light of that. The objection to pressing on with the powers they have got would have been that it would put the General Election on a date which might be inconvenient to the Government. Rather than face that, they have taken their medicine and given way to the House of Lords. Certainly when I came into the House four years ago, I felt pretty certain that it would not run according to plan. But that a Government, after four years of high pretensions and boasting of unbroken electoral successes, should then climb down and give way to the House of Lords, is something I did not expect to see.
  Mr. Pannell: I am glad of the opportunity of taking part in this Debate, if only to answer the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) because he was reminded quite early in his speech of the Marxian doctrine which says that one's actions should be determined by the circumstances of the moment, and of all people he should know that best—
  Mr. Gallacher rose—
  Mr. Pannell: Of all the parties which have been guided by expediency in all they have done, surely the Communist Party is the exemplar above everything else. That expediency led the hon. Member to canvass for Tories in a Glasgow by-election on one occasion. It made him support a Tory Minister of War, and he spoke for them in a Cardiff by-election. If the charge is to be made here that we are the natural allies of the party opposite, I would say that those are depths to which we have not sunk.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Member excuse me now?
  Mr. Follick: Allegations have been made.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: If the hon. Member will excuse me—
  Mr. Pannell: I am not unused to political controversy even if I am not so used to this House. I am not unused to the devious devices of Communists to put one off one's main theme. I will give way in my own time and not at the demand of the hon. Member.
  2066
  If we are to consider the general question of expediency, we accept the Marxian dogma that generally speaking the circumstances of the time should determine us in all our actions; or to put it in another way, as Shaw put it, man's happiness is determined by what the immediate future holds for him. We are perfectly happy because we shall go into the next Election with no doubt that we shall win it. I speak with a closer and more recent experience of the working class than the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).
  We shall, I repeat, go into the coming Election without much doubt about the result if we are to take the examples of the by-elections. I addressed 200 meetings in West Leeds quite recently and there was not one at which I did not mention iron and steel—I have a lifelong experience of the industry—and there is no doubt that the overwhelming mass of the electorate are behind us. It is no use the Opposition suggesting that we have a mandate which is expiring. Our mandate is a continuing confidence mandate from the people, and if any further proof of that is required, in view of the fact that the Opposition have imported national considerations into by-elections, what about the result of North Kensington? We have the right to say that the people who supported us in 1945 are the people who support us today, and there is no question in my mind—
  Mr. Follick: On a point of Order. Is it not generally the courtesy of this House that when an allegation has been made an opportunity is given to the hon. Member against whom it has been made to reply?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know that that is not a point of Order.
  Mr. Pannell: I will complete my sentence and then give way. There is no doubt in my mind that evidence will again be forthcoming in the South Bradford by-election.
  Mr. Gallacher: I wish to revert to the allegation about the Gorbals by-election. During the war a Tory was standing there as a Coalition candidate supported by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. Pannell) and by the Labour Party, of which he is a member. That Coalition

  2067
  candidate was in favour of maintaining co-operation with the Soviet Union in the war against Hitler. There was an I.L.P. candidate opposed to co-operation with the Soviet Union. I went to the Gorbals and made a speech—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going very wide. This is a narrow subject.
  Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. It may be within your recollection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. Pannell) made an allegation of this kind against my hon. Friend—
  Mr. McGovern: And he was correct.
  Mr. Piratin: Behave yourself.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I could not hear what the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) said when he was addressing the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). I was not in the Chair when the earlier incident took place, but it seems to me from all that I have heard that the hon. Member is going much too wide.
  Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for West Leeds made an allegation that I went to the Gorbals to support a Tory. I went to the Gorbals to support the Coalition policy, and the Labour Party and the hon. Member for West Leeds were supporting that policy and were supporting the candidate who happened to be representing it.
  Mr. Pannell: All that the hon. Member has said has confirmed the original statement I made, that there are circumstances in which even he will support Tories. That was the statement, that there were circumstances in which he would change his mind overnight—in which he was suggesting to a peace convention the next day that the Fascist beast should not ride roughshod over Europe. This is the party of miserable expediency—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was not present when this earlier interchange took place, but I think that the House has now had enough of it.
  Mr. Pannell: Which at least brings me to the conclusion that there are now considerations which force this side of
  2068
  the House to accept the Lords' Amendments. These considerations are constitutionally insuperable—[Laughter]—they are for the moment. We have passed a Parliament Bill which will render these circumstances unlikely ever to occur again.
  I do not think that we on this side of the House need apologise because on the eve of a General Election we are again prepared to submit the issue to the verdict of the country in the way we did in 1945. I say that on this matter which is before us today our record on this side of the House is cleaner in our bowing to the inevitable and in facing the people who have given us their continuing vote of confidence than is the record of hon. Members opposite, who have relied on a non-elective assembly to do for them against the will of the people what they could not do for themselves at the hustings. That is the point.
  In any event, if we agree to the broad democratic basis that we accept the will of the people, there is no doubt that if hon. Gentlemen opposite were successful at the coming Election they would undoubtedly introduce legislation to interpret the will of the people as they saw it. But we know full well that if the power of the House of Lords had been left undisturbed, the will of the people would not have worried hon. Members opposite in the least. As was pointed out by the Lord President of the Council in a previous Debate, with the House of Lords' powers as they were we could only rely upon three Parliamentary years in which to interpret the will of the people. The fundamental clash between ourselves and the party opposite is this: parties rise and fall, as did the great Liberal Party—see to what it has been reduced—but reaction will always appear in every society as a solid mass, and the rallying point of reaction will always rest with the Conservative Party.
  The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) made a considerable point about what the Socialists would do after the next Election. That seems rather curious coming from a Sheffield Member bearing in mind that the verdict in Sheffield was so emphatic that only the hon. Member and one other represent the party opposite in the great steel city. If ever a Member came from a place which had given its answer to nationalisation, it is the

  2069
  hon. Member. I addressed a week-end school—
  Mr. P. Roberts: Is not the hon. Member aware that in Sheffield at present the large majority of the people are against steel nationalisation?
  Mr. Pannell: The Amalgamated Engineering Union, of which I have the honour to be a member, asked me to take a week-end school recently for engineers in Sheffield—[Interruption.] Yes, the men on the job. I know it is difficult for some hon. Members to appreciate that some people are on the job, but it was a delegate conference of all the engineering branches held at a week-end school. I listened to a lecture on steel at that time. They had got beyond the stage of wishing, they were discussing the mechanics of the job—consultation under the Minister of Supply; what part trade unions would play. They had, I say, got beyond the stage of wishing. In their hearts it is already there, make no mistake about it.
  What is the use of trying to beg the question in this rather curious way? We have the position here today that we must defer for a short time this thing being put upon the Statute Book. We face the future with some confidence. With what confidence can hon. Members opposite face the future? I do not know at all. Their programme has been repudiated by their leader and their leader has repudiated their party from time to time, and half of the party have repudiated the leader himself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Three-quarters."] Three-quarters; I stand corrected. We shall accept the verdict of the electors at the next Election whichever way it goes. There is no doubt about that. For the first time in history hon. Members opposite will have to accept the verdict of the electors, because they have no longer got the House of Lords to buttress them up.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
  Mr. Pannell: They can no longer rely upon the vested interests, the dark forces which have always buttressed them in the past. In fact, they may as well let it go out to the world that there is no longer any use in contributing to the party war chest in the way they have done in the past, because those votes are of no use to hon. Gentlemen opposite any longer.
  Mr. Fairhurst: The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has once again made a contribution to the demise of the Tory Party by allying himself to a decadent House of Lords and by proclaiming once more his allegiance to and support of the steel barons. That is what he has done, and if this Bill is to be put on the Statute Book I cannot see how the case of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) can hold water. He said that the Bill was dead. I rose to question him on the point, but he refused to give way.
  There can be a case for altering the vesting date. Having in mind what developed recently, common sense tells us that there is a good case for altering the vesting date. When we were discussing the question of iron and steel in Committee it was argued that there would be great difficulty in bringing the vesting date forward to 1st May, 1950. I remember it very well, and that is proving to be the case. Bearing in mind what has been said, that a General Election will be held in the not distant future, I suggest that we can easily assume the reluctance of people to serve on a steel board when they have in mind a possible reversal of public opinion. I do not think that will happen, but it could happen, and one can readily understand that people will be reluctant to take the responsibility of managing a nationalised industry in those circumstances.
  5.45 p.m.
  There is another point. I am quite sure that steps will be taken by the steel barons of today to sabotage the Bill, if they can do it. The question of when the Steel Bill becomes operative does not really matter much now, because the electors will decide. The right hon. Member for Woodford said, "If we get back we will, wipe it out." We know where hon. Gentlemen opposite stand in the matter. We know where the organised workers stand in the matter, and I am certain that the matter will be one of the major issues at the forthcoming General Election. We shall not burke it. We shall put the same case forward next time as we did on the last occasion. We shall tell them again about what happened in Jarrow, and in Wales and in certain parts of Lancashire.
  Mr. P. Roberts: The hon. Member will not fool them twice.
  Mr. Fairhurst: I know of areas made derelict by the ramifications of the steel barons in years gone by, and the people were unemployed for years following that. It was a shocking tragedy for the people there. Even if the electors in the future say they have no confidence in the Labour Government and if the Tories wipe out this Bill we shall not be satisfied. I, for one, will never be satisfied until the steel industry has become a national industry. Such an event, as I have suggested, would be a set-back, but only a setback, because if we are to live and build up our economy in this country we must control all the basic and key industries.
  Hon. Members opposite have no case. They ruined the mining industry. They do not now say, "If we get back we will de-nationalise the mining industry." Of course, they do not. They know they will not do it. Under nationalisation the mining industry is becoming what it should have been long ago—an efficient instrument in our economic life.
  Mr. Osborne: Does the hon. Member realise that the mining industry is the one industry which even under the Government's programme has failed to reach its target?
  Mr. Fairhurst: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will slightly diverge from the point. I wish to remind hon. Members that the results of the 1946–47 effort, and that which will be shown at the end of this year, will reveal an advance of probably 20 million tons. Does that suggest that the coal industry is falling down? Is it not the case that the mines today are subject to reorganisation, which was bound to impede coal production for the time being? Is it not the case that that will reflect itself in a higher total later on? Having in mind that the total number employed in the industry is falling—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going very much too wide.
  Mr. Fairhurst: The Debate has had a fairly wide range, and it has been mentioned before. The same analogy can be applied to steel. It is essential for the future economic life of the country that never again shall the steel barons who controlled the industry in the past be allowed to play ducks and drakes with it.
  2072
  I remember many stories we heard about the industry. I well remember that it almost became a subsidised industry as a result of the efforts made to put it on its feet. The industry was given advantages against foreign competitors which the Opposition now claim that private enterprise does not require.
  Only recently a delegation has been investigating conditions abroad. They have come back with a glowing report. I have read a portion of it and I have assimilated the fact that our industry today is far from what it ought to be. The owners never put into the coal industry the money which should have been put into it, and I do not think they will put into steel the money required to make it a modern efficient instrument in the life of our country.
  Mr. Fernyhough: We are discussing these matters today because the Labour Party do not happen to have the good luck which the Tories have had. When they have been in power they have been able to rely on the other place to pass their Measures without difficulty, no matter how irresponsible or out of keeping with public opinion they may have been. We have found that we have had to change our plans slightly because the other place is preponderantly Tory, is unrepresentative of the people and, in essence, is deciding what legislation the Labour Government should be allowed to pass and what it should not be allowed to pass. The attitude of the other place to the Iron and Steel Bill not merely justifies our introducing the Parliament Bill, but it justifies us, if we are returned, as we shall be in 1950, taking even further steps to curb the powers which they have used against this Government and the people in general.
  It is shocking that an unelected, unrepresentative autocracy of that kind should be able to impede the work of a Government which was given a mandate by the people. Hon. Members should make no mistake about that. One hon. Member said that what the House of Lords was doing was to make the Labour Government go to the people for a second time before their legislation was carried into effect. What right has that unrepresentative, undemocratic hereditary body to make the Labour Government go to the people a second time for a mandate on an issue upon which we

  2073
  have already been given instructions by the people? Did anyone ever know in a democratic community any organisation having a power such as that?
  Another hon. Member said that he hoped that if we were not returned—of course we shall be—we would not make a political cockpit of the steel industry. I should like to ask the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) whether, if the Tories are again defeated, as they will be in 1950, they will assure us that they will not try to make difficulties in the nationalised industry. [Interruption.] I have read "The Right Road for Britain." That has got as much chance, if they get into power, as pigs have of flying.
  I should like to know whether the Opposition are prepared to give a guarantee that if they are again decisively defeated in 1950, as they were in 1945, they will not stir up against the nationalisation projects of the Government any bitterness, strife or animosity I should like to know that because the hon. Member for Ecclesall asked for an assurance from us that, in the unfortunate event, from the point of view of the country, of our not being successful, we would not make steel a political cockpit. I think it was the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) who wanted to know whether the Minister would give a guarantee that there would be completely full employment in the steel industry when it was nationalised. We can say that it will certainly give to the man engaged in the industry a far greater security than was given to the people in my Division who were in the industry.
  As everyone knows, it was a mere handful of men who took bread out of the mouths of men, women and children. It was a mere handful of men who sat down and denied them the right to work and who said, in one case, that a certain industry should not function again for many years. That is the vital difference between hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite with regard to these great industries, and in particular steel. We say unhesitatingly that it is wrong that a handful of men should have such great economic power that, as and when it suits their purpose and their profits, they can close down an industry, a shipyard or a steel works
  2074
  without having any regard to the social consequences of their action. We say that, in the great basic industries, never again must men have that power. That is why I am wholeheartedly in support of what the Government have done. That is why we have taken this step. We believe that it is not merely a question of economics: it is a question of ethics.
  Mr. Osborne: The Coal Board are doing the same today.
  Mr. Fernyhough: I could delay the House by replying to the hon. Gentleman. The last time I spoke, the hon. Member and I carried on a conversation. I have always been very kind in giving way, but I do not think it would be helpful on this occasion. I say frankly that I am sorry that we have had to compromise. It is due to the fact that the other place do not support us but do support the Tories. Let them understand that this Government will be returned. I am satisfied, that just as the by-elections since this Measure was introduced have revealed that the people are wholeheartedly with us on a Measure of this kind, by and large the people will be with us on the whole of the legislation that we introduce. In the event of the House of Lords at any time in the future trying to be in the least difficult or obstructive, it will be for us—or at least it will be for me, because this is my view—instead of trying to mend it, to take steps to end it.
  Mr. Chetwynd: I am very sorry that we are here today discussing these proposals, because there is no doubt that they represent a defeat for the Government and for the Labour Party. We ought to be quite sure, in considering that defeat, to place the responsibility where it really rests, and that is on the Opposition and on the House of Lords. They had it in their power if they had wished to play the game properly—and they have spoken a lot lately about the rules of the game—to have seen that this Bill became law in the summer of this year. If it had become law in the summer, as the Minister had a right to expect, then we would not have been facing these difficulties and proposals today.
  6.0 p.m.
  I wish to make it clear that, in accepting these proposals, there is no question

  2075
  of giving way to the other place. There is no question of running away from the issue which faces us and, more important, there is no question—there never has been—of this Bill being abandoned in spite of any opposition from whatever source it may come. It has been put about during the life of this Parliament that we have never been in earnest about the nationalisation of iron and steel. I think that any hon. Member on this side of the House will refute that suggestion. The issue is now perfectly clear. If we are returned, as we shall be, this will become an operative fact; this Bill will be on the Statute Book and we shall make it work. If the party opposite are returned, then the position quite clearly is that they will repeal the Act.
  Nothing could be clearer than that as an issue for the General Election. It does not depend on the proposals put forward today; it has always been so. If we had stuck to the original date of 1st May, steel nationalisation would still have been an issue at the Election, and the same arguments would still have applied, because we would not have had time to put it into proper working order, even assuming that the Election were as late as it was possible for it to be.
  The Opposition have not read this Bill properly; otherwise they would not accuse us of giving way to the House of Lords and compromising on this issue, because there always was that possibility of deferment of vesting date. [Interruption.] Why? Because of the constitutional set-up of Parliament today, and we have now taken steps to deal with that. The point is that the Minister, as he has always made clear in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading, has a discretionary power to delay the vesting date if circumstances warrant it. He had a period of 18 months from the passing of the Act to the date of its being brought into operation. In actual fact the proposal we have before us today makes no difference to what would have taken place, because the Lords by their action in, preventing this Bill from reaching the Statute Book last July, made it impossible for the Minister to implement this Bill before the General Election, and he always had the power to delay its implementation for a period up to 18 months. If we take the date of 1st January, 1951, as the date when the Bill will now come into effect, the position
  2076
  is made quite clear, but without his present proposals the Minister would have had to have some date about this time in order to give the Corporation proper time to arrange its affairs and in order that the Corporation could start off on a firm foundation.
  The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) did not give way when he was challenged earlier and we asked him whether he would give an undertaking that his party and the interests he represents would accept the decision of the electorate a second time. They have not accepted it the first time. They called up all the power they could in order to oppose us. That is a situation which only applies when a Labour Government is in power.
  Can we have a firm assurance from the hon. Gentleman and his party that they will not resort to some trick like that in future, when we are returned, but that for a second time they will accept the will of the people? [An HON. MEMBER: "They will have to do so."] We do not know; they may be able to arrange all kinds of things. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but when he was challenged to give that assurance, he refused. At any rate, the doubt is not removed from our minds. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman who will speak later for the Opposition will give us an assurance that will satisfy us, but unless the party opposite does give that assurance, the matter will be in doubt. The power of this industry in a capitalist society is so great that we do not know to what lengths they will go in order to retain it.
  There is only one other point. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) made the statement that he could bear no responsibility for the Election because he had no power of choosing the date, and he spoke about no responsibility without power. If we really want a very good reason why we are proceeding with this Bill, we can say that it is because we believe that there should be no power without responsibility.
  Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I will pick up a little later one or two of the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), but I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes.

  2077
  It falls to me to make a few valedictory remarks about this Bill. We shall not divide the House upon the Motion before us, because, in spite of all the Minister's sophistries—and he tried for some time to make out that there was some difference between the Government's Motion and the Lords Amendments and failed to do so—we feel that the Government's Motion, in effect, meets all the major points which the Lords had in mind when they made their Amendments, and the differences are merely the ordinary face-saving which we expect from the Government and for which I do not blame them.
  Several times during the passage of this Bill through the House, I have pointed out that 1st May was the most inconvenient date which the Government could possibly have selected. The Government would have lost nothing if they had deferred the vesting date, while in addition, it would actually have given them a little time to work out how the Bill was to operate. The appearance of this Bill on Wednesday is another instance of the almost uncanny mis-timing which we associate with the Government. It was only on Monday that the Parliament Bill, with retroactive provisions affecting this particular Bill which could only have been put in the Parliament Bill for that purpose, reached its concluding stages here, and on Wednesday we find that the Government, in effect, although perhaps not word for word, agreeing with the Lords in this matter.
  I am reminded of the story of the chairman of an insurance company who had an insurer in front of him who was rather suspect. The chairman said to him, "Mr. X, you bought that warehouse on Monday?" and the man said "That's right." Then the chairman said: "On Tuesday you stocked it with commodities?" and again the man replied "That's right." The chairman next asked him "On Wednesday, you insured it with this office?" and the man again replied" That is right, Mr. Chairman." Then the chairman asked "On Friday, it was burnt down, was it not? May I ask why this unreasonable delay?" That is exactly the sort of thing which the Government do. On Monday, they produce the Parliament Bill, with its retroactive provisions, and on Wednesday they proceed to accept the point of view of the Lords. Why this unreasonable delay?
  2078
  I have no doubt that the Government will claim—I am sorry that the Lord President, who is to reply, has deprived himself of the benefit of hearing what I am going to say—that, as a result of this retreat or defeat of the Government, the Bill will at any rate get on to the Statute Book, but it will get there in name only. The Lord President will, on this occasion, be rather a reluctant bridegroom who will have the satisfaction of leading the bride to the altar—[Interruption.] I was saying that the Lord President, whom I am glad to see is now returning to his place, is rather a reluctant bridegroom on this occasion; he will at any rate, get the bride as far as the altar, but he will get no other satisfaction, because by the time he has got into the vestry, he will find that the bride is no longer there. I think he will get little satisfaction, and we on our side shall at least know that this unholy alliance is never going to be consummated.
  There have been widespread suggestions that the object of the Government in retreating and accepting the Lords Amendments was to clear doubts over the General Election, and I must say that there seems to me to be some force in that argument. It would be quite understandable that the Government should wish to go to the country before the full significance of their four and a half years of mismanagement and misrule have be come evident. I can well imagine their fears, but they are trying to do what the Americans call "getting out from under before it is too late" Hon. Members who accept that sort of argument must think and recognise where it leads them.
  During the passage of the Bill there have been two very inconvenient matters which the Government have had to face. One of them was raised by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees. Other hon. Members have said that the object of this Bill was to prevent the development of the steel industry being in the sole hands of private enterprise. Hon. Members should know that the development plan of the steel industry has already been accepted by the Government, and that this party is committed to having the price structure of the industry under public control.
  The other difficulty is that all through the passage of this Bill the output has—very inconveniently for hon. Members

  2079
  opposite—continued to rise, and it was very difficult to explain this away. The Parliamentary Secretary, of course, had no difficulty. He said that the rising output was due to the rising hopes of the workers in the industry that nationalisation was really going to come. I feel that the Lord President will have some difficulty also, and I would like to try and help him over the stile. As long as the prospect of nationalisation is always deferred, output will probably continue to go up. What the Government fear is that nationalisation will become a fact, when output will certainly go down, as it has in every other nationalised industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which industry?"] Coal. The output of coal is below what it was in 1938.
  Mr. Chetwynd: The coal output has not dropped since nationalisation.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I agree, but it is below what it was before the war under private enterprise, both in output per man year and in total quantity.
  When the Minister of Supply—I think it was—used words to the effect that extensive powers would be in his hands when this Bill became an Act—as it will quite soon—I think he was exaggerating. The only two matters which are in his power after the assurances he has given to the House are, first of all, to freeze some dividends of the steel companies under Clause 20. We do not regard that power as of very great importance because the steel companies have carried out the exhortations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to increase their dividends. The second thing is that there is to be no hiving off or dissipation of assets without the Minister's approval. We have all along regarded this as a piece of machinery which was quite unexceptional because, until the matter of whether the steel companies are to be nationalised or not is finally decided, it would obviously be inappropriate and wrong for companies to dissipate their assets and thereby leave a great deal of tidying up to be done if, eventually, they were taken over. Therefore, I do not think there is anything at all in the powers which the Minister has under those Clauses; they are merely machinery Clauses.
  The House will be glad to hear that I have no intention of recapitulating the
  2080
  main argument why we are unalterably opposed to the nationalisation of iron and steel. There is only one argument of which I must remind the House. It is that this Bill has nothing to do with the production, the management, the centralised sales or the development programme of the steel industry. It merely seeks to vest the securities of a number of companies in the Corporation, and during the whole course of the Bill no proposals about how improvement in the production of steel is going to be made have ever been advanced by the Government. All they have done is to say, in effect, that nothing is to be altered, and that they will leave management exactly where it is.
  The main difference between the two sides of the House is that we believe that, while the industry should be under the control of the Government as regards prices and development programme, on no account should the Government enter into ownership of the industry or the responsibility which that will carry. The Lord President can, of course, wave his marriage lines at the party meeting, but the country will seize the opportunity of repudiating the Bill—an opportunity given it by the wise statesmanship, moderation, and constitutional correctitude of the noble Lord who leads the Opposition in another place, of expressing its view at a time when these questions are so wide and so arresting, since they will affect the recovery of our country.
  6.15 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): We have had quite a pleasant and quiet afternoon on what may be—I do not know—the last stage of the effective consideration by this House of the Iron and Steel Bill. Even now, we are for the greater part discussing the question of the timing of the operation and commencement rather than the substance of the Bill
  The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) made some somewhat indelicate remarks about leading the bride to the altar, and speculated as to what was going to happen thereafter, about which I dare to say nothing. However, we all took it in good part and enjoyed the witty observations which the right hon. Gentleman made. [Interruption.] I am not going any further into that; there is a high proportion of very

  2081
  respectable Members in this House, and I am not going to offend anybody.
  I do not want to get on to the substance of the Bill—indeed, Mr. Speaker, I might be in trouble with you if I did—but the right hon. Gentleman said that output would fall when the steel industry was nationalised, as it had fallen in other publicly-owned industries. He was asked which industry, and he said in the coal industry; but he had to go back a good number of years. The fact is that the output of coal has increased since the industry came under public ownership as compared with the pre-public ownership period. On the other hand, it was said by many lion. Members opposite, including those who can speak with authority for the iron and steel industry, that if the Bill was proceeded with there would be a real danger of the steel output going down. We all know that while this Bill has been going through, the output of steel—owing to co-operation on both sides of the industry—has actually gone up, which only goes to show that miserable predictions do not always come true.
  The Opposition tried to depress hon. Members on this side of the House with predictions about a sad fate at the next Election. It is very unwise for them to do that; they may have an awful bump and surprise when it comes, because, after all, they—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about recovery corner?"] We are still going round it. After all, hon. Members opposite were quite confident that they would win the last Election. Following the precedent of Mr. Lloyd George after the 1918 Election, they were quite confident about it, and, poor little things, they were out on the mat when the Election finished. I do not want to rub that in but the same thing is likely to happen to them again. The truth is that they have got the Election on the brain.
  Mr. Mitchison: How do we know that they have got one?
  Mr. Morrison: For myself, I have too many other things to do, much too much public work to be concerned with, including public speaking—which is part of one's work—and much too much useful work to do for the nation to worry about the next Election.
  It is now calmly asserted that these alternative Amendments, which the
  2082
  Government submit to the House should go to another place, have something to do with the date of the next Election. I cannot see it. I cannot see any relevance to the date of the next Election because, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply said in opening, we are up against the calendar. It is nothing to do with the Election; it is the calendar we are up against. The fact is that, owing to the delay in the coming into law of the Bill, my right hon. Friend says quite simply—and it is true—that on the calendar and on the pure time factor we cannot bring the Bill to where we wanted it to be by 1st May, and therefore my right hon. Friend is forced, by the intolerable interference of their Lordships with the decision of the people at the last Election, purely because of the calendar, to alter the date in the Bill. That is all there is to it.
  I do not mind the Opposition amusing themselves and speculating about the date of the next Election. They, with the aid of their capitalist supporters, have spent a lot of money on the next Election already, on the assumption that it was going to happen this autumn. Now they have got to collect some more money, as it is to happen at some other time. This is a free country and anybody can speculate about the next Election. Therefore, I have no objection and I am not worrying about it. It will come when it comes. Meanwhile, let us get on with the work of the country. That is our duty to the country.
  This Motion has nothing whatever to do with the date of the next Election. Whether or not there is an Election, it is clear that the date which my right hon. Friend put in the Bill cannot be maintained owing to the obstruction and the interference of another place. That is all there is to it. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is forced by sheer force majeure to alter the date in the Bill. Then the Opposition say. "Aha! The motive here is related to the date of the next Election." Half Fleet Street gets busy.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Not the "Daily Herald." That does not report at all.
  Mr. Morrison: The "Daily Herald" is much too discreet to go barging into these things.
  Mr. Stanley: No news value.
  Mr. Morrison: The "Daily Herald" is a very reliable newspaper. It is possible to fill the columns of the Press with speculations which have no foundation, or with fact. The "Daily Herald" prefers to fill them with fact and not speculation.
  Mr. Stanley: Not these particular facts. The "Daily Herald" this morning did not even record the fact that these Amendments were on the Paper.
  Mr. Morrison: I should imagine that that was because it was already news. There was certainly a story in the "Daily Herald" about today's discussion. I thought it was a very good one, too, and up to its customary standard of accuracy, which is very high.
  Not content with speculating and alleging that these Amendment have something to do with the date of the next Election, some of the newspapers, bless their hearts—I am not quarrelling about it; the House knows that I have a great affection for them—have actually published the date of the next Election, following the example of the Chairman of the Conservative Party organisation some time ago, who as usual was wrong. It has also been alleged that the only reason for introducing the Parliament Bill, which was decided on Monday night, was to settle the Iron and Steel Bill. I have persistently denied that, and I still deny it. [An HON. MEMBER: "That proves it must be so."] That is naughty. If that remark were put in more direct terms, it would be out of Order.
  I do not know what their Lordships are going to do with these Amendments at all, but suppose they pass them and agree to them. Then the Bill will be on the Statute Book this Session, and the Parliament Bill will have nothing to do with the passing of this Bill whatever. That will prove conclusively that the Parliament Bill was not brought in purely for the Iron and Steel Bill. The Parliament Bill was solely a Measure of general legislative insurance. That was all. If it has not to be operated in this Parliament, that is fine; as long as the Government and the Labour Party get their own way, we are satisfied. We would get no special kick out of the Iron and Steel Bill being passed under the Parliament Bill. If we can reach agreement otherwise, that is all right. It may be that this Bill will be on the Statute Book by the
  2084
  end of the Session without recourse to the Parliament Bill at all.
  What is certain is that the Parliament Bill will be on the Statute Book by the end of the Session. Therefore, I think these allegations that the Parliament Bill was brought in solely to deal with the Iron and Steel Bill are wrong. It was perfectly clear then, and it is more than ever clear now as it has worked out, that the two Bills are taking their separate courses and will probably arrive at their destinations without the one having the slightest relationship to the other so far as constitutional procedure is concerned.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has very courteously informed me that owing to a longstanding engagement he could not wait to hear the end of the Debate. Of course, I accept that; indeed, I was very grateful to see him at the beginning of the Debate. He said he did not mind at all what I said about him while he was away. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was glad that the electors had got a clear chance to pronounce on the merits of the Iron and Steel Bill. The electors had a clear chance to pronounce upon the merits of these proposals at the 1945 election. If ever there was an absolutely clear Election manifesto, it was that section of our manifesto dealing with the socialisation of industry, in which we clearly stated the industries which we proposed to transfer to public ownership. The entire list—it was not a very long list; after all, we have only been here five years—was treated in exactly the same way. The language was substantially the same, and there was nothing special about iron and steel.
  If their Lordships passed the Transport, Electricity, Gas, Bank of England and Coal Acts, and the Cable and Wireless Act, which enjoyed the support of the Opposition—and remember that they passed them, as stated by the Leader of the Opposition in another place, because there was a mandate for them from the people, which I have quoted in this House but with which I will not weary the House again—then I say that they had no more justification to interfere with the Iron and Steel Bill than they had to interfere with the Coal Act, which is one of our socialisation Measures. Nobody has yet argued on constitutional grounds that their Lordships had a greater right

  2085
  to interfere with the Iron and Steel Bill than they had to interfere with the nationalisation of coal.
  I will tell the House why we had this trouble about the Iron and Steel Bill. It is because it was the last socialisation Measure, in time, to come before the House of Commons. It was, therefore, because they had the greatest chance of wrecking a socialisation Measure. That is the only reason. I say that the electors pronounced upon this Measure at the last Election, and, with great respect, their Lordships' House have no right to require that the electors shall pronounce upon it a second time before the will of the representatives of the people is operative.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Leader of the Opposition said that, therefore, we shall have something like a referendum at the next Election. His enthusiasm for referenda is extraordinary. He almost wanted one at the last Election, about something connected with the procedure of the Election or, rather, some idea that the electors should say "yes" or "no" as to whether the war Coalition Government should go on—a typical Hitler expedient. Now he wants this Iron and Steel Bill to be submitted to a referendum. For myself, and I think I speak for the Labour Party, we do not believe in the doctrine of the referendum in this way. We believe in representative Government. We are better constitutionalists than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He referred to the "great" Parliament Act. I said, "Which?"; and he said, "The 1911 Act." Well, Sir, that is all very well, but there was not a single Tory cheer behind him. I understand there were violent scenes in this House in 1910 and 1911 when that Act was going through, and even now there is no great enthusiasm for the Act of 1911.
  The right hon. Gentleman says it is a good thing that, on this Iron and Steel Bill, another bottle of medicine should be tried. I suppose that is another way of trying to argue about the doctors' mandate. He says they are not in power; we on this side of the House have to do these things and we must take the consequences. That is perfectly true. He said that, not being in power, they have no responsibility.
  Mr. Stanley: He did not say that.
  Mr. Morrison: I thought he said more than that. I want to point out that, in any case, it bears out the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservatives. It shows that they have no sense of responsibility either as an Opposition or a party which seeks to be in power.
  I wish to thank various hon. Members from my side of the House for the support they have given to the Government in this matter. They have made excellent speeches. I also thank hon. Members opposite for the contributions which they have made to the Debate. I thought it would be rather more exciting and would last longer, but often the House surprises one, one way or the other; sometimes, when one expects it to go on, it does not, and sometimes when one does not, it does. That shows what a human institution Parliament is.
  I want to say only these few words in conclusion. I join with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Supply in protesting against the necessity for moving these Government Amendments to their Lordships' Amendments. It ought not to be necessary. We had every reason to assume, in the light of the other socialisation Bills, that this Bill would have been on the Statute Book in July of this year, and it ought to have been on the Statute Book by July of this year. But it was not: there has been delay and we have had a Recess since.
  On the question of dates, we must make these changes. We think it is a sensible thing to do, although we regret that we have to do it; and we do it, making our protests against its necessity. I commend the Amendments to the House and I trust that they will be acceptable to another place, as they certainly ought to be. If they are not so acceptable, well, the Parliament Bill will soon be on the Statute Book and it can make its contribution to the placing of the Iron and Steel Bill on the Statute Book. We think we are right; we believe their Lordships have been wrong; we believe that the Opposition are wrong; and I commend the Amendments to the House and trust that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, who has worked so hard on this Bill, will shortly have the satisfaction of knowing that this great Measure is at last upon the Statute Book of Parliament.
  Resolved: "That this House doth insist on its disagreement with the Lords in the said Amendments."
  Amendments made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendments disagreed to:
  In page 2, line 8, at end, insert:
  "(3) The Minister shall not appoint any member of the Corporation before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty."
  In page 10, line 21, leave out from "of," to "as," in line 24, and insert:
  "January, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, or such date later, but not more than twelve months later, than the date aforesaid."
  In page 11, line 11, leave out "May, nineteen hundred and fifty," and insert:
  "January, nineteen hundred and fifty-one."
  In page 69, line 10, leave out from "appointed," to end of line 14, and insert:
  "not later than two months before the date of transfer."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL [Lords]
  Instruction to the Scottish Standing Committee that they have power to extend the Bill to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands in order to make provision for the removal therefrom to Scotland of persons sentenced to penal servitude, imprisonment, corrective training, preventive detention, Borstal training, or detention in a Borstal institution or in a detention centre.—[Mr. Woodburn.]

  SCOTLAND (DEVOLUTION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: The question which I raise tonight, and which I have good fortune in raising so early in the evening, is that of devolution. I shall give my definition of that in a moment, but I should like to say this to start with: the purpose of my raising it tonight is to press for what we on these benches have been urging for some time—and that is, a full inquiry, more especially in the light of the various proposals which have been made for devolution. It is not my purpose to argue the merits of any particular form of devolution. While, as I have said, we on these benches have always pressed for this inquiry, I should like to make it quite plain that in my remarks tonight I shall speak for myself alone and not for any party or for any section or for any body outside this House. Even if time permitted the Rules of Order would not allow me to go into the merits of the various proposals for devolution, since some, at any rate. I think, would require legislation.
  The definition that I would put upon this word "devolution" which is a word familiar to us in Scotland, but, perhaps, not so familiar elsewhere, is the conferment of powers, whether legislative or functional, whether absolute or conditioned, by a body which already possesses those powers on a body which either already exists or is set up with the particular object of exercising those powers. It might be one body or it might be more bodies upon which those powers were devolved. It may be said that some degree of devolution already exists at St. Andrew's House in Scotland, but the House should know well that St. Andrew's House is, in fact, simply a department of government which was transferred from an old site in Whitehall, and does not represent devolution in the real sense.
  The reason why I put down as a subject of Debate devolution in general, and not simply devolution for Scotland, was that devolution is a general problem that is facing any Government today. It arises, on the one hand, through the increasing

  2089
  penetration of government into the daily lives of the people, whether it is their upbringing or their households or their business or their leisure, and through the administrative complications that follow from that; and, on the other hand, it arises from the wide differences of character, outlook, and development between different localities in the Kingdoms. The problem, of course, becomes a good deal more acute when a separate national sentiment is involved. It becomes still more acute where a separate language is involved, in a country which largely speaks a separate language. It becomes most acute of all—to my mind, though possibly others in the House may disagree on this—where there is a separate law involved, as in Scotland.
  As the problem is general I did ask the Lord President to reply to the Debate. He was afraid he would not have time, but I am very glad to see him in his place here so that, at any rate, we may make our views known to him, and I hope that, in the course of the Debate, we may either goad him or inspire him to make some contribution to the Debate. As it is, the Secretary of State for Scotland, I understand, is to reply to the Debate; and I would say at once that some of the things I may say may not please the Secretary of State; but they are not in any way intended to be personal, because I intend to be objective and not objectionable. At least, I hope he will not be betrayed into one of those explosions in which he indulged a short time ago. If he were to do so we should simply conclude it was the result of his being over-tired in consequence of the nature of his office, which, I have always maintained, it is quite impossible for one man to fulfil satisfactorily.
  What is the present situation? It is plain that the steps that the Secretary of State has taken to extend the discussion of Scottish Business in the House, and consultation with certain interests in Scotland, have not, in fact, satisfied the Scottish people. I give the Secretary of State full credit for trying, but it is clear that he was not on the right lines; for this reason, that the changes which he has made have procured for Scotsmen no additional power of decision in their own affairs, but only the opportunity of being consulted by the right hon. Gentleman, or of discussing matters with him.
  2090
  The Scottish Grand Committee in itself is becoming more and more of a bottleneck, and the difficulty is that it is serving a bottle some 400 miles away. If I may parody words used in another connection I would say, "Some bottle, some neck." It is far too unwieldy for a Standing Committee. It is almost twice the size of any other Standing Committee, and the more it is given to do, the less can Members representing Scottish constituencies devote themselves to their duties in connection with business which affects Great Britain as a whole.
  I sometimes feel that the right hon. Gentleman is a little resentful at the rise of Scottish sentiment. He has really no cause to be resentful. It is in no way personal. It is quite a natural phenomenon. In a very interesting broadcast on Sunday night Mr. Robert Birley pointed out, in the course of his remarks, that it was quite possible for a person to be conscious of belonging to Scotland, or Wales, and at the same time be a loyal Briton, and, for that matter, a good European. There is, in fact, a delicate balance, and there has been for the last 200 years, between this business of being a good Scot and a good Briton—and I take it the same applies to Wales—but that balance over the past 40 years has, in fact, been unduly weighted on one side.
  And these are the factors which have weighted it. In the first place, there have been two wars—wars which demanded a collective loyalty to Britain which certainly tended, for the time being, to obscure the nearer loyalty of national sentiment. Secondly, there was the ill-fated Irish question, which, undoubtedly, caused quite a number of people to fear any manifestation of national sentiment.
  Third, there has been the tremendous increase in the functions of government. I looked up the number of State Departments for English affairs before the 1914 war, and I found that, excluding the Departments for Scotland, Ireland, and India, there were at that time 13. There are now 25. Of their functions the Secretary of State covers only three of the Departments and a bit, and a few outcrops of sporadic responsibility. The fourth factor has been nationalisation. While the real power has been centralised in England an attempt has been made to appease national sentiment by calling subordinate area or divisional boards by a national name. That attempt has completely

  2091
  failed, because its effect is to make people in Scotland—and, I have no doubt, in Wales—too conscious of the fact that the power has really been removed, and that only the shadow has been substituted.
  The rise of national sentiment, therefore, is nothing but a natural reaction. It has corrected the balance which has been upset by those four factors and it cannot be disregarded. The fact is that, very largely because of the enormous increase in governmental functions, Scotland, at any rate, is less independent than she was in 1914, at a time when there was a party in power which was pledged to Home Rule.
  Mr. Speaker: That cannot be mentioned during this Debate. It is quite out of Order.
  Mr. Macpherson: I was not going to follow that up; I was mentioning it by way of illustration.
  Mr. Willis: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how Scotland was more independent in 1914?
  Mr. Macpherson: I thought that I had made clear that it was because of these four factors and the enormous increase in governmental functions, the power of which is centralised in England.
  That growing national sentiment is the main reason that I wish to bring forward in order to urge that there should be a full inquiry. When a nation is convinced, as Scotland seems to be at the present time—and I am told Wales is also—that it can run its own affairs better than they are run at present—and I do not think that this is a party matter at all—there is only one thing to do, and that is to reexamine the whole structure of government. The question has to be considered: What are the affairs which it is in the interest of the country to run for itself and by itself and what are the powers which it should have either conjointly with England and the other members of the Commonwealth, or which should devolve on it absolutely? Members of the House will be aware that at the present time a covenant is being signed by people in Scotland who pledge themselves, and I quote from the covenant:
  "In all loyalty to the Crown and within the framework of the United Kingdom to do everything in their power to secure for Scotland a Parliament with legislative authority in Scottish affairs."
  Mr. Speaker: The question of a Parliament for Scotland, which involves legislation, should not be mentioned at all in an Adjournment Debate.
  Mr. Macpherson: It is difficult to mention the fact that this covenant had been signed, without giving the purport of it. I shall not pursue this matter except to say—believing as I do that the matter must first be fully examined—that I have not signed that covenant. I take it that it would not be in Order for me to pursue that matter further, except to say that the number of signatures which will be obtained through that covenant will put it beyond doubt that there is a very strong feeling on this matter.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to qualify your Ruling on this matter. In Scotland the terms "Home Rule" and "devolution" are very often used as if they were synonymous. Can you expand your Ruling to explain when we are referring to devolution and not to Home Rule?
  Mr. Macpherson: I said at the beginning of my speech that devolution might involve matters needing legislation, but it might also involve matters that do not need legislation, and I am attempting to make out a case for an inquiry into devolution as a whole.
  Mr. Speaker: It would have been happier if the title of this Adjournment Debate had been "The administration of Scottish Affairs at Westminster." That would have been quite in Order. Devolution, of course, is a difficult title. I am bound to say that if anything is suggested which may involve legislation, I must rise in my place and object, because it is not in Order to do that on an Adjournment Debate.
  Mr. Macpherson: As I have already indicated my purpose in raising this matter is to press for an inquiry into the whole matter, and not to argue the merits on incomplete results.
  Mr. Speaker: The matter of an inquiry which will involve legislation would be out of Order on an Adjournment Debate.
  Mr. Macpherson: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, it is often difficult, to tell what will come out of an inquiry when one goes into these matters. All I will say about the covenant is that it

  2093
  does bring to the surface the fact that there is a very considerable amount of support for some change. That is precisely why an inquiry should be set up to make certain that whatever change is made is the right change, and a change which accords best with the interests of the country and the Commonwealth at the present time.
  It seems to me that the worst thing that could possibly happen at the present time is that this whole question should become involved in the next Election. The reason I say that is because it would only be one of very many questions, and even in the countries concerned the verdict that came out of the Election would not be a verdict on that particular matter and, therefore, could not be regarded as having any bearing, or very little hearing, on the issue. I am impressed by the fact that, so far, neither major party has got out any policy on this matter. I am not at all certain that parties will be anxious to do so before the General Election, the reason being that there must be some concern that no sooner has one party put out what it proposes to do, than it may be outbidden by another party. That illustrates most strongly the fact that we are going in a certain direction of which, I think, the House should take due note.
  In concluding, I would appeal most strongly—I see that the Lord President has not managed to stay to the end of this Debate—to the Prime Minister himself, through the right hon. Gentleman, to set up some machinery, whatever it may be, to deal with this matter. It may be a Royal Commission or a conference arranged by you, Mr. Speaker, to sift the evidence, to examine proposals and to make suggestions on this vexed and vital question. We are moving in a certain direction, and I have no doubt that the great body of the people of the countries concerned support that movement and are moving in the direction of having some direct control of their own affairs.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this question: Is he aware that a conference representative of both Houses—none other than the Speaker's Conference in 1919 and 1920—decided unanimously that a large measure of devolution respecting Scotland, Wales and England was absolutely necessary and urgent?
  6.57 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) for raising this subject in such a reasonable manner. As he stated it, it seems a very simple proposition, but, of course, it is not so simple as it appears. There is and there has been for nearly 1,000 years, a general atmosphere in Scotland—a resentment against any suggestion that any other person or country should impose its will upon the Scots. Our short motto is, "Wha' daur meddle wi' me." This attitude of mind leads to a watchfulness and, in some cases, to suspicion of purposes and motives of any non-Scottish administrative decisions; and while in most cases this may be quite unjustified, its existence has to be recognised.
  Arising out of this feeling, I think that it is true to say that if asked: "Do Scots prefer to make their own decisions?" the answer, undoubtedly, would be "Yes." Such questions are quite unrealistic and have no reference to the practical application of such a sentiment. The answers which they automatically provoke are quite valueless. The hon. Gentleman's proposition that we should have some inquiry into these problems appears at first sight to be reasonable, but we have all to ask ourselves whether such an inquiry would be necessary and desirable, and, if so, whether this would be the time to have such an inquiry. On the first point, there is no evidence today that, to elicit information, such an inquiry is necessary, and the hon. Gentleman has produced no evidence of that kind.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: The right hon. Gentleman has been asked previously to produce evidence showing, for example, the contribution of Scotland to the economy of the country, but he has not seen his way clear to have these figures brought out.
  Mr. Woodburn: If the hon. Gentleman will cast his mind back to the White Paper, he will remember that the Government gave the reason for that: these figures were not available. No willingness or effort on my part can produce figures which are not available, and it seems rather futile to go on insisting on having figures which are not available.

  2095
  Members of Parliament have direct access to all the information in regard to the economic and administrative affairs of the nation which is available under present circumstances. So far as many doctrinaires are concerned, there is of course plenty of misunderstanding and misconception on this point, but there is also every indication that this particular section of the public simply refuses to look at any facts which do not conform to or support their own preconceptions. So far as administrative devolution is concerned, the Government have made it their special task to see that the work of overhauling the administrative machine is carried on continuously and effectively. Much in the way of decentralisation has already been accomplished, and I agree at once that on this point there might be some differences of opinion as to what that degree should be, and that is a matter which can be worked out in a practical way when practical questions are raised.
  Special attention is given from day to day to the possibility of devolving executive responsibility in a way which would conduce to greater efficiency. Any question of Parliamentary devolution, however, raises fundamental constitutional issues of the most far-reaching character, and whatever may be the arguments for and against a general inquiry into some such question at some future date, the present economic and international situation makes it imperative that all our effort should be concentrated on the vitally urgent task of restoring our national economy.
  So far as the economic situation is concerned, our very survival depends upon the position which Britain holds in the opinion of the world. This depends first and foremost on its ability to maintain its moral leadership in the eyes of world democracy. It would be the height of unwisdom at such a time to suggest that the unity of Britain was even questioned by separatism or divisions within our own country. It is true, of course, that these demands are at the moment presented in the most harmless language—almost as innocuous as the approach of the hon. Member for Dumfries—but when one realises that the Communist Party is one of the parties which places itself behind this demand
  2096
  it will be seen that this tactic is entirely in accordance with their customary strategy. But just like Communist Trojan-horse tactics in other spheres, there are other elements behind the present agitation which have a somewhat different idea from the harmless ones which are put into the shop window.
  It is interesting to note the Press reaction to some of these elements after the recent convention. The "Edinburgh Evening Dispatch," which normally supports this campaign, wrote:
  "Necessarily the war is waged by a heterogeneous army, all inspired by patriotism undefiled, but not all commanding in equal degree the confidence of their countrymen. Some of the most ardent campaigners make them feel as Wellington felt when he surveyed certain raw recruits. If they do not scare the enemy they certainly scare the more moderate Scots."
  That was the reaction of a newspaper which favours this particular agitation. On the same evening the "Edinburgh Evening News" said:
  "Their lachrymations were more than amply sustained by as heterogenous an assortment of patriots, partisans, and band-waggoners as ever crowded under the one umbrella. It was surprising enough to find Montrose and Marxists fellow-travelling together."
  The main political parties of the country, so far as one can judge, seem not to be involved in this agitation. The chairman of the recent meeting, however, is ubiquitous. He has been linked in turn with the Labour, Liberal and Conservative Parties. Among the main propagandists it is interesting to find the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, who before the war in a debate with the present chairman denounced the whole movement. He declared:
  "Scottish Nationalism, with its pinchbeck heroics, its political posturings, and its sham sentiment is just a will-o'-the-wisp."
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: We have heard that about exports, too—that they were a will-o'-the-wisp.
  Mr. Woodburn: I do not see the connection. He went on:
  "There is, I think, no doubt that Scottish Nationalism in its present form is a charlatan movement. It prefers political quackery to conservative effort. It is disruptive and destructive."
  Among the other sectional leaders, one declared recently that Finland, a small State on the border of Russia, enjoyed

  2097
  freedom and security which Scotland did not have on the border of England. Another of the personalities asserted that it was only through Communism that Scotland would get back her independence, not through Westminster. He was not in favour of any devolution: he wanted complete disjunction from England. He appealed to the working class to ally themselves on the side of the Soviet Union which had shown that it meant peace. Even the leader of this movement during a very critical point in our affairs made a speech which suggested that the only way Scotland would get justice would be if somebody threw a bomb on Downing Street. I saw another speech of his recently in which on three occasions he mentioned the word "bomb."
  Now, in these emotional movements that is very dangerous talk, and we have already had experience of bombs being in existence in this movement on two separate occasions in Scotland. For a leader of a responsible movement to indulge in this type of talk is extremely dangerous indeed, even though he phrases it in language which does not make him the prime instigator. We shall be wise, therefore, to take note of the irresponsible elements who control this movement, and not to allow perfectly reasonable and creditable sentiments, such as the hon. Gentleman has put forward tonight, to be misused for the ultimate purpose of sonic of those people concerned. While, therefore, it might be easy for the average Scot to say he wanted to control his own affairs, his answer would be very different if he realised that this might do much to disrupt the economic life of Scotland and England. If the extremists in this movement had their way, we might find ourselves being blocked so far as the free intercourse of trade exists between the two countries.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to do any particular groups or individuals any injustice, but he is in fact grouping together two bodies which are entirely different: one is Scottish Convention and the other is the Scottish Nationalist Party.
  Mr. Woodburn: So far I have been referring to the chairman of Scottish Convention, so there can be no mistake about that. The people that I am mentioning were all present at this meeting which has been publicised over Scotland, at which
  2098
  a great many innocent people attended probably not knowing with what they were associating.
  Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison (Edinburgh, West): Did the chairman of Scottish Convention refer to the use of bombs?
  Mr. Woodburn: Not there, naturally. When you have a lot of innocents present you do not mention those sorts of things.
  Mr. Leonard: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to those present at the Convention meeting in critical times, but many of those at the Convention have opinions in this matter somewhat similar to his own.
  Mr. Woodburn: That may be so. The point I am making is that the people I am describing were at that Convention; everyone I have been describing is a leader of a particular section of that Convention, and when the Press refer to these heterogeneous elements I am merely pointing out to innocent people the danger of being wrapped up in a movement which may take them along roads over which they have no desire to travel. In the present world situation, it is essential that this country should speak in the councils of the nations with one voice, and that Parliament should give no encouragement to the suggestion that there is any intention on the part of Scotland to do other than stand together with England and Wales in one of the greatest democratic partnerships the world has ever seen.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: On a point of Order. It seems to me that almost the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is completely wide of the mark and is bordering on the subjects which you, Mr. Speaker, forbade me to mention.
  Mr. Speaker: I confess that I was getting a bit nervous.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Since the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned Wales in connection with the statement he is making, I must tell him that Wales will take strong exception to the way in which he is handling this matter.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in this

  2099
  way? As I understand it, he is a legal luminary, and the Ruling of this House is that legal gentlemen must be treated with respect. Is it in Order to cast reflections on the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, who has been linked up with bombs?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a matter which does not seem to involve legislation, and therefore it is not out of Order.
  Mr. Woodburn: I was quoting the words used by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates before the war, and I am sure he will not object to that in any way. Even to suggest to the world that our British Parliament is considering such a matter would be used by the less scrupulous propagandists connected with these movements to undermine faith in the unity of Britain among the other democracies of the world.
  There are 20 million Scots abroad, many of whom left a Scotland of hardship and trouble, and it is difficult for them to appreciate at their true value misrepresentations which might come from propaganda in favour of disunity. For these reasons, I would conclude that it is not only unnecessary that there should be such an inquiry at this time, but also that it is highly undesirable. So far as Scotland is concerned, the question of a general inquiry has already been carefully considered, and the Government's conclusions, together with the reasons, were set out in the White Paper which I presented to Parliament in 1948. Nothing has happened since that White Paper was published to lead to different conclusions..
  In the circumstances, between the wars a good many Scots people would have considered this a matter of some urgency, for in addition to the general feeling which existed then that it was preferable to have Scottish decisions made in Scotland, there were also problems of desperate poverty and unemployment, where Scotsmen had to stand idle seeing a greater and greater decline of their industries, while in the Midlands and London they saw new light industries springing up and attracting from Scotland some of the best of her craftsmen. It was natural that most of us should feel that something ought to be done, and the minds of Scotsmen turned to the very question which has been postulated tonight.
  2100
  Actually, of course, these economic matters were outside the field of government in those days, even if they had been minded to interfere. There was not then, and there is not now, any power to direct industry to any district, or, indeed, to decide its allocation. Between the wars, industrialists were free to follow the attraction of the big centres of population and the proximity to markets. No devolution of legislative authority, in itself, could have remedied these industrial difficulties. It would have been more difficult to attract or press English firms to Scotland under these conditions. However, the urgency which was given to such thoughts by the situation in those days has disappeared. The face of Scotland is now vastly changed. There is no part of the British Isles where more hope, enterprise and industrial development is taking place than in Scotland.
  The recent Scottish Industries Exhibition in Glasgow scintillated with the brightness of the faith which today lights up our industries. While it is true that the Government even now do not direct industry, steps have been taken to build factories in the former distressed areas and elsewhere, and further developments are prevented in the suburbs of London and in other over-developed places. Factories to provide up to 150,000 jobs are already under way, and I think that there are over 100,000 already working in these factories. Places like Dundee and Lanarkshire, which felt threatened by the blight of decay are now centres of activity developing new skills and providing prosperity for their regions.
  Scotland, as a whole, is guided by a comprehensive plan of developing its industries and its agriculture. New coalfields are being opened up to replace the old, and an orderly transfer of labour is taking place from West to East. We have a 50 years' plan for forestry which, with the new developments in agriculture, is already re-populating our rural districts, while a great variety of new industries all over Scotland are providing an opportunity for the craftsmanship and industry which our country can provide. The fear, therefore, which inspired inquiries before the war into self-government arose because of the drifting away from Scotland of industry and prosperity. The fear today in many industries would be the very opposite.

  2101
  It would not have been possible for Scotland by itself to have effected this new balance to its industrial life. The United Kingdom Board of Trade and the Government planning authorities have been able to use their influence to induce industry, against its desires in some cases, to go to these development areas. Scotland, and I am sure Wales also, has welcomed these new industries from England and America, and in all cases these new enterprises have declared their satisfaction with the conscientious and skilful work they have obtained from the workers of Scotland. It follows, therefore, that changed conditions have for the time being removed considerations of political administration from the sphere of urgent necessity to one of academic and doctrinaire agitation.
  It is significant that in the recent development of Scotland there have been no general demand from responsible sources in industry, commerce, the trade union or other economic fields to interfere with the integration and co-operation of the economic life of the United Kingdom. The urgent problems before the country today are not those of unemployment and industrial decay, but the international problem of our balance of payments and restoring peace and co-operation throughout the world.
  It was suggested that Scotland has the equivalent of only three and a half Ministers. This is typical of the lack of information on how their country is governed on the part of responsible Scotsmen. If the hon. Member makes inquiries, he will acquaint himself of the actual facts. Scotland controls its own affairs in health, agriculture, education and home affairs.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: But not in the case of immigration.
  Mr. Woodburn: If that is the only exception, then all I can say is that it does not amount to very much. Scotland controls its town and country planning, and in the Scottish Economic Conferences we have an overall supervision of the planning of Scottish economy and of our social life. At this moment there is no country in the world which has such opportunities and such information available for its comprehensive planning as our little country of Scotland.
  Mr. Gallacher: Do not overdo it.
  Mr. Woodburn: That is quite true. The hon. Member will admit that the geographical area of Russia makes it less easy for them to do such things. Scotland is now planned economically and agriculturally. There is not one section of our economic life which is not under guidance. We have completed a survey of the whole of Scotland which will be going to the local authorities there, and two years from now they will be in a position to put forward planning proposals for their own areas. In addition, we have had an agricultural survey which is already far ahead of that of most countries and in a short time we shall have a soil survey which will give us better knowledge of our soil than has been available to any other Government.
  That is possible because our country is small and compact and because in Scotland we have the advantage that most Departments are under one Minister. While it may appear to be disadvantageous that there are not many Ministers in Scotland, it is advantageous inasmuch as there is no difficulty, under one Minister, in resolving any conflict of opinion there may be in the Departments.
  Take agriculture and forestry. In Scotland, we have had the opportunity of combining our agriculture and forestry and it has been developing for some months, indeed years. Certainly, during my period of office there has been no greater harmony than there has been between these two Departments, which were formerly considered to be in conflict.
  We are planting great areas of Sutherlandshire, where afforestation and agriculture will be developed, and we are planning to ensure that the Highlands are reopened to occupation by cattle. There seems to be some confusion about the question of summering cattle on deer forests and keeping them there in winter. Everybody is agreed that we could feed far more cattle in summer in Scotland, but the essential problem is how we are to breed many cattle and keep them economically in the winter in the Highlands. There has been a good deal in the Press about Lord Lovat's experiment; I am sure we shall all welcome any success he may have, but it must be remembered that he has great parklands and

  2103
  that he has no difficulty in wintering his cattle. At Fort William we are experimenting in turning cattle out on to the hills, as they are turned out on ranches, and trying to keep them there winter and summer.
  Mr. Snadden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this sort of thing has been going on for years, long before this Government came into office?
  Mr. Woodburn: Yes, but not at Fort William. It is only possible there because the climate is not one which brings snow and ice with the same regularity as it does in other parts of the Highlands.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: This is all very interesting, but what has it got to do with devolution?
  Mr. Woodburn: We are dealing with the question of whether Scotland governs itself successfully or not; I am sure I could not make a speech in accordance with the hon. Gentleman's ideas of devolution; but I do say that Scotland has better control of her own affairs than was suggested by the hon. Member for Dumfries, who tried to denigrate the power Scotland has and her great influence. The hon. Gentleman made the amazing statement that Scotland is less independent now than she was in 1914. Does he not realise that since 1914 Scotland's powers have been enormously increased? As a result of the Gilmour Report, the whole of Scottish administration was shifted from London to Edinburgh.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: I said so.
  Mr. Woodburn: That seems to be nothing at all to the hon. Gentleman. What he said was nonsense, and was the sort of misrepresentation that brings discredit on any movement which is standing for any further measure of devolution. It is an argument that can be demolished so easily.
  Mr. Gallacher: Why not use the good old Scottish term "rin doon," instead of the appalling word "denigrate"?
  Mr. Woodburn: I quite agree. Unfortunately, I have been hearing that word so often lately that it was the first one that came to my mind. I agree that an English word is at all times better than
  2104
  a Latin word and that Scottish is purer English than English itself.
  As I have already said, the problem of today is the international problem of our balance of payments. Scotland's wellbeing is bound up, in any solution of this problem, with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. During the last four years we have been fully occupied in dealing with questions of great urgency and importance to us all. It is more than ever necessary that we should concentrate the mind and energy of the people on the solution of these questions, on the success of which our very existence depends. In that connection we find that it is necessary to build up unity in Europe with both political and economic co-operation and, at the same time, there is ever closer combination of the policies of the Commonwealth and ourselves. Moreover, our well-being is closely linked with the American continent, which supplies us with much of our food and raw materials.
  Scotland is a relatively small country, but its interest and thoughts extend far and wide. Its sons and daughters are good citizens of many countries in the world. In England, America, Australia and New Zealand they do good work in their new sphere and never lose their love for their "ain countrie." They are no little Scotlanders, but have the breadth and generosity of world citizens. The overwhelming majority of Scots are proud of the part they have played in the British nation, and the combination of Scotland and England has probably accomplished more towards the civilisation of the world than any other comparable development in history. This agitation that Scotland should shrink into her shell is as insignificant as it is noisy. The Scots can look after themselves, but at the same time they are willing and able to march in company with the great spirit of the democratic world.
  7.29 p.m.
  Mr. McGovern: This Debate on devolution seems to be expanding rapidly into something of a world wide Debate, and it is a pity that it is getting so far afield. I must compliment the Minister on being able to reply to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) in a speech which was evidently prepared before the Debate opened. While there are many parts of

  2105
  it with which it is possible to agree, I thought it was rather unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman to say that those in Scotland who have a genuine desire to see a further extension of devolution for their country, were throwing bombs in order to scare the people of Scotland.
  After all, those who consider that there should be an extension of devolution by the Government are only in line with the ideas which some right hon. Gentlemen and most Scottish members of the Labour Party put forward before to this Parliament. Even though we have had a Labour Government, and many reforms have been made in Scotland which one can claim on behalf of the Government as genuine and conferring lasting benefits, it does not mean that the last word has been said about an extension of devolution, either for Scotland or even for Wales. Even though he may be like the ostrich and attempt to bury his head in the sand, there is a considerable opinion in Scotland which believes that there should be a further extension of devolution in that country, which would enable it to grapple with many of its own affairs.
  Mr. Woodburn: It would be very interesting if the hon. Gentleman would digress a little and give us some instances, because it has been extremely difficult for us to get people to come off the astral plane and get down to earth to tell us what they mean.
  Mr. McGovern: I could, but I do not want to be pulled up before I go very far. I could say this—there is a general belief in Scotland that there is no economic crisis there, and that it can be attributed more to England than to Scotland. These people believe that some of the proposals for solving the economic crisis in Scotland could be more adequately met if we had some form of national rule. At the same time, I could remind the right hon. Gentleman that many hon. Members who today are condemning this movement previously put their names to Motions on the subject in this House. One former Secretary of State had as a strong point before he got into office this idea of some form of Home Rule. I do not, however, intend to go further into that, which is exactly what the Secretary of State asked me to do.
  Undoubtedly there is this growing opinion. In all seriousness I would say to the Secretary of State that he is not
  2106
  going to damp down the national feeling that is evolving in Scotland by speeches of the kind that he has made tonight. Indeed, he is going to kindle the flame which is burning there. Measures have been taken to deal with many of the problems and injustices of the past. I do not say this as a narrow nationalist, because one of my great difficulties is knowing exactly what is my real nationality. With an Irish father and a Scottish mother, I become a sort of Welshman. I have no narrow feelings on the subject. I am prepared to accept both the co-operation and the citizenship of all these nations, and to combine with the best of them and work for the best that we can get out of life.
  Whether it comes from the Duke of Montrose or from the members of some form of party in Scotland advocating constitutional methods to solve our problems, I certainly am prepared to work with them. A large number of the people who are in this movement are sincere people as anxious for the welfare of Scotland as is the right hon. Gentleman. When the issue is raised in this House of having some form of extension of Home Rule, the argument cannot be met by making our blood boil with some of the things that have been said by certain individuals. We cannot meet the arguments put forward with the kind of remarks made in the latter part of the speech by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Woodburn: Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that when a movement is sponsored by certain people the credentials of the people who are leading the various sections should be examined in a public Debate when their point of view is being put forward? The mere fact that some sincere people are attached to the movement does not necessarily mean that all sincere people are attached to it, and that the credentials of people who express these things should not be brought to the notice of the House of Commons.
  Mr. McGovern: Yes, but if a movement has people who believe in unconstitutional methods of dealing with events, the whole movement is not to be condemned because of that. There were some in the Labour Party—until they were recently expelled—who believed that, but we did not condemn the whole Labour movement because of them. We have no right to condemn this genuine

  2107
  movement which springs from a desire on the part of a large section of the Scottish people by attributing to it some unworthy motives or because of pronouncements that have been made by individuals in the past. If we are to condemn every movement urging Scottish devolution because of these things, then every church in the country will be included in the number.
  All I am saying tonight is that in my estimation this is a genuine movement, and it has to be welcomed in Scotland in so far as it is turning Scottish people along constitutional lines for some agreed solution of the country's difficulties. Let us welcome the suggestions that are being made by these people, and at the same time let the Government consider whether they are going to advance along the road to meet the needs of what I believe represents a large amount of Scottish public opinion.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: After the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland I should not be surprised if, when he arrives at Waverley Station next Friday, the Duke of Montrose is waiting for him with a claymore. We have listened to a speech of absolute blood curdling irrelevancies. It was like something written by some script writer who had taken part in the writing of "Whisky Galore." To introduce irrelevancies into this discussion, such as the youths who were suspected of having bombs, and to associate it with the Duke of Montrose—
  Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that I merely introduced people suspected of these things? The statement I have made was made by assumed responsible leaders of the movement and there was no question of people having suspected bombs. They were convicted of having bombs.
  Mr. Hughes: My objection is that the Secretary of State, in order to confuse the House, is introducing what in American terms is known as an amalgam. Because some unfortunate, extreme section of youths had on some occasion or another been convicted of having bombs does not mean that all the responsible people who are taking part in this convention—leaders of public opinion in Scotland—should be lumped together, and for
  2108
  some obscure reason or another associated with the gentleman who was discovered carrying some kind of bomb. I suggest that the Secretary of State is dragging in these irrelevancies because he has a weak case.
  I admit that he produced a very impressive catalogue of what has been done in Scotland under this administration. It is a good record which we can defend without any of these irrelevancies. He talked about the Highlands of Scotland, and he introduced everything which could be said about Scotland in recent years with the exception of artificial insemination of cattle. I was waiting for that to come along. There was an extraordinary omission in his speech. He catalogued our achievements, which are infinitely better than those of any Tory Government or Government composed of people like the Dukes of Montrose.
  I want to go back to the point which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) made about the machinery of government in Scotland. Instead of the romantic case produced by the Secretary of State, let the Lord Advocate say whether it is not a fact that our administrative machinery for delivering the goods to the people could be improved if we had a measure of devolution such as was suggested by the hon. Member for Dumfries.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): If the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) urged a measure of devolution, I am afraid that I did not catch it.
  Mr. Hughes: The speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries spoke for itself. I have enough liabilities with the Secretary of State for Scotland without taking over the hon. Member for Dumfries.
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) suggests that it would be a good thing if we adopted a measure of devolution such as was advocated by the hon. Member for Dumfries. The hon. Member has accepted and has homologated that suggestion. Would he tell us what the suggestion is that he has adopted, accepted, and homologated?
  Mr. Hughes: At that spot in his speech, the hon. Member for Dumfries came into conflict with higher authority

  2109
  and it was at that point that I tried to get some guidance as to when we could advocate devolution and when we could advocate Scottish nationalism. The Secretary of State claimed that as the result of the concessions which had been made in constitutional arrangements the Scottish Standing Committee was working satisfactorily and that we had no need to complain, but we have already found a very serious defect in those arrangements, particularly respecting the cuts in capital expenditure, a matter of essential interest to Scotland. In the Debate upon the economies, nobody from Scotland was fortunate enough to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker, except the right hon. Member who represents the Scottish Universities (Sir John Anderson). He spoke for the Tory Party, but so far as I am aware he has never been seen in the Scottish Grand Committee in his life.
  The economy cuts vitally affect housing, education, agriculture and mining, but we have not had an opportunity of getting them discussed by our committee, which was supposed to be a substitute for a Scottish Parliament. Hon. Members on all sides will agree that if the machinery which has been produced will not allow us to discuss such questions and to ask how they affect Scotland, there must be something very wrong. In that case the constitutional machinery that we have is no alternative to devolution. I have tried all sorts of ways to find out how Scottish Members can discuss the economy cut. I asked the Chairman of the Scottish Standing Committee. He referred me to the Table. I have had a Ruling from the Table that we have to wait until the next Scottish Estimates—when probably the cuts will have become an accomplished fact. The constitutional machinery which the Secretary of State has so eulogised does not allow us to discuss those cuts. That position is not good enough and will inevitably mean questions being raised in Scotland with regard to the matter.
  I would like the Lord Advocate to come down to earth and to practical things. I would like to ask him how we can, as Members from Scotland of all parties, discuss the economy cuts in agriculture, education and the other ramifications of social life in Scotland. I noticed that the Secretary of State made a panoramic
  2110
  survey of our accomplishments, but he omitted to mention the one question in which Scottish people are interested—housing. When I come on to that question you look at me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with something like irritation, but I would like to remind you that one never gets anything in this House unless one is prepared to make himself a thundering nuisance. That is the only way by which the Irish got Home Rule. I wish that all Scottish Members would adopt the same attitude as Parnell and his Irish Party did, because we could make the question of Scottish housing the most important in this House, and English M.P.s would be very glad to get rid of us.
  It is no good telling us that, in the present state of affairs, the Government are delivering houses to the people. They are not. We are suffering from the fact that we have no Ministry of Labour reporting on Scotland. The other day I asked a Question of the Minister of Labour about building labour supply in Scotland. He said he was quite satisfied with it—a most ignorant answer. No Scottish Member would say he was satisfied with the building labour position in his constituency. I have here a speech made by the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland. The Minister of Labour, who is a Londoner, does not know anything about Scotland, except from his Department. The speech in question was delivered at Clydebank by that Minister and I will read a quotation from the "Scotsman." He said:
  "I am more than a little concerned, I am alarmed, at the rather low rate of completion during the last month or two and the rather alarming drop in the number of building operatives employed in house construction."
  He is alarmed at the alarming drop, but the Minister of Labour was perfectly satisfied.
  Mr. Woodburn: Would the hon. Member give me the occasion when I made that speech?
  Mr. Hughes: I am referring to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in his speech at Clydebank, as reported in the "Scotsman," and not to the Secretary of State. The Joint Under-Secretary in question is here, and if he wishes to contradict the report he can do so.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. J. Robertson): Perhaps the hon. Member will read on a little further.
  Mr. Gallacher: No, that was quite enough.
  Mr. Hughes: It was a long speech, and it is a two column report. I will not weary the House by reading it all. The Joint Under-Secretary said that he was more than a little concerned; he was alarmed. If he denies that, I will withdraw it entirely. He cannot, and he ought not to deny it—and he does not deny it.
  If this is the truth about housing in Scotland, our greatest social problem, if we cannot even discuss it and if we find constitutional barriers whenever we want to ask exactly what is being done about housing in Scotland, it is time we had an overhaul of the constitutional machinery. As far as housing is concerned, I am prepared to accept a measure of devolution in which Scotsmen will have an opportunity to decide in Scotland about the housing conditions there. It is an alarming problem. It is a problem which at the present rate will be with us for 20 years. We are entirely justified in raising this on every possible occasion as long as our people are living in such shocking conditions.
  I will put forward my idea of devolution. I believe that we could have devolution in housing, education, agriculture and innumerable other aspects of our social life. For nearly 20 years I was a member of a Scottish county council, and I can conceive of a large variety of subjects which could be dealt with effectively if we had a measure of devolution. If we had even the Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Scotland I do not believe that the Government would be allowed to blunder along in the way they are doing with the housing programme. I put down a very modest Motion on the Order, Paper asking that the Scottish Grand Committee should have power to meet in Scotland. If it met in Scotland the Scottish people could keep an eye on it. If we had that Scottish Grand Committee as a sort of miniature Parliament, its powers would rapidly grow and inevitably the spirit of Scottish nationalism—I am not a Scottish nationalist; I am a mongrel, a humanitarian—would then crystallise itself into something
  2112
  practical in the way of administrative machinery.
  It is entirely wrong to be complacent and to pretend that with the enormous problems which confront us we can blunder along with the present constitutional machinery. I believe that the English would be very glad indeed to get rid of us. The Secretary of State and the Government should treat this matter more seriously. Giving the Scottish Grand Committee power to sit in Scotland would be a first step towards finding our way to a better solution of all these problems.
  7.52 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Debate has been of interest, but it has been, and is being, conducted under considerable difficulties. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) found the difficulty of discussing devolution without mentioning any steps towards devolution very great indeed. As practically all the steps which could be taken towards devolution would require legislation of some kind or other, the argument is necessarily very seriously truncated.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has delivered a very vigorous speech from which it would be difficult for anyone to conclude that he was a supporter of the Government. It is he who maintains the Government with his vote in Parliament. It is he who maintains the Secretary of State in his refusal to give facts and figures for which Scottish hon. Members have pressed. When we are debating economic affairs, it is he who maintains the exact position of which he has just been complaining. He has no right to talk on these matters in those terms if he seriously believes that he should make himself a nuisance and that all Scottish Members should make themselves a nuisance to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  I can tell him that the worst possible way of making himself a nuisance to the Secretary of State for Scotland is to follow the Secretary of State into the Division Lobby whenever the Division bells ring. That is not the way in which the Irish succeeded in their movement. The hon. Member says that he is not a Nationalist and that he is not in favour of the movement. All one can say is that he delivered a speech which certainly seemed as if it were a preliminary to a movement very

  2113
  close to that which the Irish Members initiated and carried through in this House, except in the one essential thing of voting against the Government. The Irish Members voted against the Government all the time. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire votes for the Government all the time.
  The difficulty in which we are is a difficulty with which, as the Secretary of State rightly said, all countries are concerned at the present time. It is the difficulty of nationhood and the difficulty of co-operating with other units in a closer or less close co-operation. Nobody can deny—I do not think anybody does deny—that Scotland is a nation, but it is a nation which by its own choice has agreed to work with the great nation south of the Border. It is also true to say that of late years it has felt a certain irksomeness in this association, and although the Secretary of State gave many examples of the extent to which Scotland was planned by the Government nowadays, the gravamen of the charge is that the increasing control, which of recent years has been more and more centralised in Whitehall, inevitably produces a sense that power is moving from Scotland to England.
  Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) will surely agree that the planning for Scotland is centred in St. Andrew's House and not in Whitehall.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Let us take the word "planning." There is the Town and Country Planning Act. Let us consider whether that Act is entirely centred in St. Andrew's House. Surely the Secretary of State will not claim that it is.
  Mr. Woodburn: As far as planning is concerned.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As far as planning is concerned, but where does the Commission sit? The synthetic landlord which we have made to cover the whole of Scotland sits in Westminster.
  Mr. Woodburn: He sits in Scotland as well. We have an office in Scotland dealing with this. The Commission in Whitehall deals only with that part of the Central Land Board's activities which are connected with the Treasury, the financial side and not the planning side.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but when we make an absentee landlord and set him down in Whitehall, it is rather evading the difficulty to say that he is concerned only with the financial side of the case. Of course, the landlord is concerned with the receipt of his rent, but I never heard of an absentee landlord being held up to admiration because it was said that he did not really interfere in the running of the estate but merely sat some hundreds of miles away, to use an eloquent phrase employed by an hon. Member opposite in a recent Debate, "raking in the shekels." That has been the accusation against absentee landlords in the past.
  Mr. Willis: Surely the analogy is false. In one case the landlord himself determines the rent in accordance with the circumstances obtaining at that time. In the case of the Central Land Board it is determined in very specific terms by an Act of Parliament and by regulations issued under the Act.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The naiveté and optimism of the hon. Gentleman are almost impossible to swallow. If he says that these sums are determined by Act of Parliament, let him go to the Central Land Board or any of its offices with any project for development and see whether he can get a statement out of them according to any Act of Parliament as to what sum they will exact from him.
  Mr. Willis: I am afraid that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not followed the discussions in the House on this matter. That is precisely what the trouble has been about. The Act is too rigorous about this.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The lion. Member reminds me of a famous occasion on which somebody in another country was complaining that goods were being very badly delivered at the harbour, and the man in charge said, "Oh, you have not been reading the newspapers." I am not talking about Debates in this House, but about the experience of anyone who has tried to handle the development of a property. Everyone knows that. It is not true that it is so rigid and flexible that everybody can bring out a ready reckoner and run down the columns and say: "Such and such is the proposition and such and such will be the charges." Everybody knows

  2115
  that. The exactions which the Central Land Board will make from anyone who tries to develop a property are more like soldiers playing "housey" than reasonable administration. I know of dozens of cases of people who have brought forward propositions and have found it impossible to obtain any serious consideration of what the financial charges would be.
  Mr. William Ross: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bring us back to the devolution question and say whether these difficulties are applicable only to Scotland and not to England?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not know whether the hon. Member was listening to the Debate, but surely the argument on devolution was that there was too much control in England of Scotland and that there should be less control in England of Scotland. I was discussing one aspect where, in the Central Land Board, there is too much control in England of Scotland and every hon. Member on both sides of the House has had experience of it.
  Mr. Ross: Yes, but is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that if that Central Land Board, operating the same Act of Parliament, were sitting in Scotland, things would be any better?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In my view and that of my hon. and right hon. Friends it was a bad Act—
  Mr. Ross: That has nothing to do with it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: —and its vices are inherent in the Act. I do not wish to find myself at loggerheads with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I do not know whether the hon. Member is acquainted with what the old lady said, namely, that when the administration of Scotland moved out of Scotland into England it was a bad thing for, when they were in Scotland, "We cd aye pebble them weel if they were no' good bairns." The fact is that if the Central Land Board were in Scotland it would not do all the things it does now. However, I must not be led away—
  Mr. Willis: That is precisely the opposite of what the former leader of the Scottish Conservative Party said in this
  2116
  House in the Debate on the Town and Country Planning Bill. He said that even if we had it in Scotland, the final decision would still be in London.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I remember rightly I spoke in that Debate myself—
  Mr. Willis: I am talking about Lord Reid.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We said that it was a bad Bill, but I cannot go into the question of the repeal of that Act now, for it would be out of Order. We pressed strongly in the case of all these boards and bodies that responsible boards and bodies should be set up in Scotland. Who voted them down? The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire voted them down. Those are the people who voted against our attempts at devolution.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to me. He started off by saying that on every occasion I always vote with the Government and follow the Secretary of State into the Lobby. The Secretary of State will be obliged to know that, but does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman forget that only a week ago, when the question of the death penalty in Scotland came before the Scottish Grand Committee, I voted against the Government and it was he who followed the Secretary of State into the Lobby?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If the hon. Member is suggesting—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is nearer to him than I am.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: —that the economic evils of Scotland would be cured by hanging a few more people, then he is very wide of our Debate this evening. This Debate is not a consideration of whether there should be capital punishment or not. The hon. Member has many bees in his bonnet which buzz round with terrific vehemence and from time to time escape, as one did in the Scottish Grand Committee. However, it was cribbed, cabined and confined and it did not go far.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree at least that they are useful bees.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There are bees and bees. Female bees are useful creatures—they collect honey. Male bees are drones—they do nothing of the sort. They swagger about, they consume honey, and they do nothing whatever except maintain the comfort of the queen to the extent of 20,000 or 30,000 of them. No, the hon. Member has chosen a bad example in the case of bees.
  The difficulty with which we are faced is that we are trying to reconcile the co-operation of a nation with the life of a nation. That is a problem with which we shall always have difficulty in dealing. We say, first, that the increasing pressure of government in our affairs, which is the definite policy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, will lead inevitably to an increase of the pressure of centralised government upon our affairs. We ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether the fact that 40 per cent. of the national income is now gathered and spent by the Government—which is to say that 40 per cent. of the economic power of this country flows across the desks of some 20 men in Whitehall—is not the real cause of this increasing feeling. I agree with the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that it is an increasing feeling and that somehow or other, the pressure of distant government ought to be moderated in the case of Scotland. I say that it is due to increasing legislative control of all the activities of the citizens and that, if it continues, methods of lifting this close control from the citizen must be found. As a preliminary to that, certainly we ought to have more facts and figures than we now have. The Secretary of State said that they are simply not available. But they ought to be made available.
  Mr. Woodburn: May I remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the reason given was that the Treasury are trying to conduct financial negotiations all over the world and that the pressure on Civil Service staffs today is enormous. Also, it was not thought desirable at that time, nor is it now, that those staffs should be diverted from that highly important work to make figures available which, when they were made available before, nobody accepted because each person refused to accept anything which did not coincide with his own preconceived desire.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As the poet Housman has said:
  "To think that two and two are four
  And neither five nor three
  The heart of man has long been sore
  And long 'tis like to be."
  Since two and two make four—
  Mr. Gallacher: No, they make 22.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are not discussing Lysenko's genetics or Soviet arithmetic we are discussing bourgeois Western arithmetic where, when one adds two and two together, they make four and one does not put them side by side and make 22. No doubt there are other parts of the world where that is considered a bourgeois way of going about it, but let us for the moment, since we are in a bourgeois assembly, keep to ordinary bourgeois arithmetic.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it not true that two and two under given conditions make one in bourgeois mathematics?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member is obviously thinking of some other bourgeois mathematics than the mathematics taught us in school. I keep to the simple old-fashioned arithmetic taught me in school where two and two make four, and I believe that will be supported by a majority vote of the Members of this House.
  Mr. Gallacher: It depends what you are adding.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The difficulty we are in is simply this, that it is very difficult for us Scots people to discuss even the elementary questions of our own administration without, as you can see, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as a representative Englishman, being led away into many fascinating by-ways of abstract philosophy, which make it very difficult for administration to be carried on. Therefore, Scotland has always been a country where at the end of the day a good deal of authority rested in the centre. We have, naturally, a centralised set of institutions, as the Lord Advocate will very well know. The system of justice in Scotland is centralised to an extent quite different from that in England. For all that, it is centralised in Scotland. To use a very famous old Parliamentary phrase, we feel that centralisation in England has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.

  2119
  The request of my hon. Friend for more facts and figures cannot be dismissed so completely as it was dismissed by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman says, rightly, that the Treasury are engaged in great and important negotiations all over the world. So they are; but this Island of ours—Great Britain, the United Kingdom—is the foundation, the base from which all these activities proceed. If one partner in the United Kingdom desires an inquiry into facts and figures, those facts and figures ought to be made available, and I do not believe people will be satisfied until that is done. Whether or not they will be satisfied after that is a different matter.
  I do not myself believe that plain figures can be denied, but we cannot discuss that until we at any rate obtain the plain facts and figures. According to the Secretary of State a few minutes ago, these facts and figures could not be given. Those dealing with the economic cuts have been quoted, but, there again, we on this side have pressed—before, during and after the Debate—for a White Paper covering both England and Scotland. The refusal of that request was supported in the Division Lobby by the massed battalions opposite. Hon. Members on the other side cannot have it both ways. They cannot so refuse figures and then support a demand that figures should be given. It is not from that side of the House that the demand for further figures has come.
  The difficulty of suggesting any form of alteration in our affairs without suggesting measures which would inevitably require legislation is exemplified by the fact that tonight it has not been possible to put forward any such proposals; clearly, it would be out of Order to discuss them tonight. At the same time, as has been said by at least one hon. Member tonight, we certainly are not at the end of the reformation of Scottish administration; we ought to continue to consider and to examine ways in which the yoke can be better moulded to the shoulders, where the shoe can be eased from pinching where it pinches. These are all matters which certainly should receive our continual and urgent attention.
  I do not think this is the moment when we can go deeply into these matters, but we can go more deeply into them than
  2120
  we have been able to go tonight and we ought to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has done a service to the House and to the country in raising this matter, even under the limited conditions in which we have had to discuss it, but at the end—
  Mr. Scollan: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, as a former Secretary of State for Scotland, tell the House of the particular Departments of administration in Scotland where the need for devolution is now showing itself but did not show itself when he was Secretary of State?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: A very simple example is the case of all nationalised boards. These things did not exist before; they do exist now. The same machine that was adequate to deal with the administration of Scotland when many of the great industries had not been nationalised is, it seems to me, inadequate to deal with it when a great many of them have been nationalised. I do not think the hon. Member will deny that.
  Mr. Scollan: That is entirely different from what I had in mind. I was thinking of the usual administrative Departments which had actually functioned. I cannot for a moment visualise a Ministry for Mines in Scotland while the Treasury would look after the whole of the financial interests, nor a Ministry for Railways under similar conditions. Obviously, that would be absurd.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member will not deny that the Secretary of State has great powers, duties and responsibilities in connection with both these things which he did not have before and, in the case of electricity, has a direct responsibility which he never had before. I cannot have made my argument clear. I was arguing that the increasing weight of administrative responsibility which falls on the Secretary of State by the very reason of the increased regulation of the affairs of Scotland, which the Secretary of State was bringing forward proudly to the House, did mean that the machine which was adequate to deal with the position before was either overstaffed then—which, as a former Secretary of State for Scotland, I do not think is true—or is understaffed now; in some way or other, it is not fully adequate to deal with this position. I am sure that the ordinary

  2121
  Scotsman- and Scotswoman feels there is great justice in that contention.
  As to the general contention of the Secretary of State that it was most desirable that this great and fruitful partnership of England and Scotland should continue, that the co-operation which we have achieved within this Island should not be broken up, I and I think all my hon. and right hon. Friends are heartily in agreement with the danger to the world just now by the successive splintering of forces and the break-up into smaller and smaller and less and less viable units of former great economic syntheses. That we should deliberately bring such destruction upon ourselves is an aim which only a very few, and those only of the most extreme, would desire.
  Neither does that mean that the last word has been said on the administration of Scotland or that our present machinery or information are adequate. All these things are inadequate, and about them all we should know more. But we should shun as a mortal peril the fragmentation which some people desire of this great and fruitful international co-operation—for the co-operation of Scotland and England is an international co-operation. That fragmentation would be a great disaster. What is more, it would make a great mockery of all that we are preaching to the rest of the world when we are arguing that Western Europe should co-operate and come together. When we are facing Benelux, when we are trying to extend these things still further, that we should then tear up the bonds and the channels of communications which exist between our two countries, that we should establish a Customs frontier—as, I agree, some advocates of that movement have suggested—and all the barriers going with it between Scotland and England, would not be progress but reaction of the blackest nature.
  Therefore, we on this side do not feel that a fully adequate answer has been made. With many of the things the Secretary of State has said we would be in full agreement, and I support him in the general attitude that the co-operation between the two countries should be fostered and not injured but as for saying, as he said, to use a popular phrase, that everything in the garden is lovely, I do not think that squares with the mood of Scotland today. Therefore, I say that
  2122
  we are not at the end of this Debate and discussion. It will have to be carried a great deal further yet before the people of Scotland are fully satisfied that they have a 20th century administrative garment fit for the conditions of modern life.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I agree with the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) that this is a matter which cannot be settled in a very short time. It will undoubtedly occupy the minds of people concerned with government for many years to come. We are very much indebted to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) for giving us the opportunity of discussing this question tonight. There is no doubt that it is a matter which we must discuss and of which we must take heed.
  I think the growth of feeling concerning devolution is the result of two or three factors. We have had a century of Liberalism which led to the development of nationalities and placed on these nationalist aspirations considerable powers in Europe. At the same time, we have had the fact in Scotland of enormous poverty and distress between the two wars. It is very easy to work up feeling against the present governmental set-up when there is poverty and distress, rather than getting down to tackling the problem fundamentally, by which I mean that it is easy to attribute, the failure to the Government rather than to the system.
  I think there is a third reason and that is a reason we have to face sooner or later. All over the world today there is a tendency to centralise. With increased centralisation, no matter whether it is as a result of nationalisation in our country, or the result of the growth of monopoly, or the result of international planning, there is the feeling that we are creating something in which the people will be very little interested and that unless we tackle this matter we shall destroy the springs of democracy. People are not so interested in things that happen a long way off as they are in things that happen on their own doorstep. I speak, as the right hon. and gallant Member reminded me yesterday morning, as an Englishman, although, I would remind him, as an Englishman who won a Scottish constituency and did

  2123
  not have to scuttle to the safety of the universities—
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We will continue this discussion after the next Election.
  Mr. Willis: As an Englishman who has spent the whole of his civilian life in Scotland and who represents a Scottish constituency, I have naturally taken a great interest in this problem. In my constituency the problem seems to branch into two streams. First is the stream of thought which suggests that we do not get a fair deal in Scotland. I think that stream of thought is justified by what took place when the Tories formed the Government. There is no doubt that Scotland did not get a fair deal between the two wars. There is no doubt, for instance, that between the two wars, instead of getting 25,000 houses a year, which we would have had if we had had the same number as England, we got 16,000—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my hon. Friend complete the story and say that when the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was at the Department of Health, he decreased the housing subsidy and that resulted in a further decrease in the number of houses?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the hon. Member carry it still further and point out that there was no unemployment in the key trades of Scotland and the reason why there was a decrease in Scotland was that the trade unions forced the Scottish plasterers and bricklayers to leave the country?
  Mr. Willis: That is quite a new argument. The fact is, as committees which have reported on the situation have shown, that between the two wars we lost 150,000 houses in Scotland, which would have gone a long way towards solving the problem today. We also had immense unemployment, even in Edinburgh and Leith. In Leith we had almost the worst unemployment incidence in the whole country. In the West of Scotland we had a similar picture. Anyone who visited the mining villages knows that many of them were completely unemployed—not a decent suit in the village and homes with only a chair and table and only one bed in which they had to take turns at sleeping.
  2124
  Naturally, today we have this constant arguing about whether we are getting a fair deal. I find that most of my constituents are concerned about this and they ask, "Do you think we are getting what we should get?" I think we are. In every matter I have tried to investigate I have found that not only are we getting a fair share, but in most cases we are getting more than a fair share. That is a tribute to this Government. It is a tribute to this Government, for instance, that for the first time for 200 years people are not leaving the Highlands. That is a great tribute to this Government. There is a hope in Scotland now and a spirit which looks to the future with confidence. If we give the facts to people who ask for the information, most of them are satisfied.
  We cannot ignore the fact that there is also the national sentiment which has a sense, or feeling, of frustration. How can we settle this matter? The hon. Member for Dumfries asked for an inquiry. I am not certain that an inquiry is the right method. It seems to me to presuppose that we want to know whether we are going to be better off or worse off. If we are to be worse off, are we to ask for still greater devolution and greater division? That does not seem a suitable ground on which to approach the problem. I should have thought that the approach to the problem of devolution should have been on a wider basis. Either it is right in the interests of government, in the interests of encouragement of democracy, a vital, vigorous democracy, or it is not right. Surely we shall not support the parsimonious attitude that if it happens to suit our book and we are a pound or two better off, we want to devolve still further, but if we are a pound or two worse off, we do not want to devolve.
  The right approach is—is it necessary? I think it is necessary. This House of Commons is overworked at present. There are many problems of Government arising, and it is a fact that the House cannot really perform properly all the tasks which it is called upon to perform. During the lifetime of this Government we have given certain powers to the Scottish Grand Committee. That was a step in the right direction, but I have not yet been able to discover what exactly are the powers. We have the right to

  2125
  talk about Scottish Estimates for six meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee but what can we do if we wish to do something arising out of those discussions? That is the problem.
  Mr. Woodburn: My hon. Friend has the power, if he is not satisfied with a Scottish Estimate, to put down a Motion on the Order Paper of the House to deal with it in the usual way, as with any other Estimate.
  Mr. Willis: I ask that because when we have finished discussing the Scottish Estimates, the Question put is that we report to the House that we have discussed the Estimates. I do not know exactly what that means. We simply say to the House that we have talked about the Estimates; we do not say that we have approved them.
  Mr. Woodburn: That Motion says, in effect, that the Committee is satisfied. Clearly if any Member is not satisfied, his course of action is to put down a Motion of censure or some other Motion on the Order Paper of the House.
  Mr. Willis: Is the Scottish Grand Committee given the power to vote on these Estimates?
  Mr. Woodburn: The point is that all members of the Scottish Grand Committee may not be dissatisfied but individual members may be. Those individual members have the right of Members of the House to dissent by putting down a Motion.
  Mr. Willis: They can do that without the Scottish Grand Committee discussing the Estimate for six forenoons.
  Mr. Woodburn: In that case they would not have had the same opportunity for discussing the Estimates before putting down a Motion.
  Mr. Scollan: This is all very interesting. Does this mean that the Scottish Grand Committee has not the power to disapprove and can only approve, and that if any members of the Committee disapprove the Grand Committee as such cannot disapprove and a Motion would have to be put down in the House of Commons?
  Mr. Woodburn: Certainly that is what it means. In such circumstances any Member who wishes to dissent must put down a Motion.
  Mr. Willis: That is the point I wish to raise. What we have actually done does not seem to me to have been more than say to Scottish Members, "You can talk about the Scottish Estimates."
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Can we carry this matter a little further? If the hon. Member or a number of hon. Members during the discussions of the Scottish Grand Committee indicated their dissatisfaction about a Scottish Estimate, we of the Opposition would be very pleased indeed to put down a Motion on the Floor of the House of Commons, carry it to a Division and then look round for the support of those hon. Members in the Division Lobby, which is of course the only place that counts.
  Mr. Willis: That argument of the right hon. and gallant Member is rather clever but it has nothing to do with the point I am making, which is what exactly these discussions of the Scottish Estimates for 2½ hours in the morning actually mean? In point of fact, they do not give us any more power; they give us a greater opportunity to discuss the facts.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is what Parliament is. Parliament is a machine for discussing the facts. That is how Parliament obtains its power. I would give as an example the tuberculosis position in Scotland. The examination of that matter has been forwarded by the attention given to it in the Scottish Grand Committee.
  Mr. Neil Maclean: Is it not the case that when a Bill is remitted to the Scottish Grand Committee for discussion there, that Committee can take certain decisions but those decisions can only operate if this House agrees with them. The Scottish Grand Committee can make all the decisions it cares to make in the Committee room but it cannot do anything in the matter of changing anything that has been done outside the Scottish Grand Committee to the detriment of Scotland.
  Mr. Willis: I am not denying the fact that this is an improvement. Of course it is, and I accept it as such. All I am trying to find out is what we can do next. I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will agree with me in that. Therefore, I was trying to find out exactly what we had done. It seems to me that we must do something more. Like my hon. Friend the

  2127
  Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I put my name to a Notice of Motion on the Order Paper proposing that this Committee should meet in Edinburgh. That would not be giving it more powers but it would give its Members the opportunity to conduct their parleying in Edinburgh. This was recommended by a former Secretary of State, and I still think that it is something which could be done.
  I could go further in suggesting what I think should be done along the lines of devolving powers upon Scottish Members and probably in the creation of newer organisations, but that would be out of Order. It seems to me that not only have we to tackle this from the point of view of the legislative duties of the House of Commons, but also we have to tackle it from the point of view of the administration of Scotland. One of the complaints is that we have cluttered up Scotland with consultative committees. I think that consultative committees, if managed and run properly, and with a certain vigour by members who are informed, can become quite powerful organisations. We tend to underestimate the value of consultative committees, and we underestimate the position to which the consultative committee can win if it is run in the right way, and if the people on the committee know where they want to go.
  But this is not sufficient; something more has to be done. What the exact answer to that is, I am not so sure about as I am about the legislative duties; but I think something more has to be done, and that we have to apply our minds to this matter. If we do not apply our minds to this matter, then all our talk about wanting to create industrial democracy and that sort of thing is beside the point. A live and vigorous democracy can only find its expression close to itself. How much interest do we find in the proceedings of the United Nations—a most important organisation—because it is so far away? Therefore, we must give greater powers to the people to organise in Scotland and find a method of devolving powers upon the people there.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I support the plea of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish
  2128
  Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). I have no doubt that the verdict of Scotland tomorrow upon the response of the Secretary of State to this reasonable request will be that it has been very disappointing. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can hold the view that he does, which I understand is that all this agitation has no foundation. That was the impression he gave—that those who were seeking some change and making a complaint were of no consequence. He said there was no criterion presented to him. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must know that this is a matter of the keenest discussion in all parts of Scotland at the present time. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) admitted it. He said that it is a matter that must be discussed and taken heed of. He said his constituents were constantly asking questions about it.
  We all know that this problem of Scottish Government is the subject of meetings, discussion, articles in the newspapers every day. We know too that some of the great Scottish newspapers, the "Daily Record," the "Daily Express" and the "Scotsman" take very strong views upon this. To pretend that there is not this quite serious agitation in Scotland and that these are not, in fact, matters of the greatest concern to Scotland, is simply to deny plain facts.
  Mr. McKinlay: Is not it a fact that the editorial policy of two of the newspapers to which the hon. Member refers is controlled from London and not from Scotland at all?
  Mr. Stewart: Really, with great respect, that is simply not true—
  Mr. McKinlay: I will have a bet with the hon. Member any time he likes.
  Mr. Stewart: It is not true that the editorial policy of the "Scotsman" is conducted in London.
  Mr. McKinlay: I said two news-papers—
  Mr. Stewart: I mentioned three of them, the "Daily Record," the "Daily Express" and the "Scotsman."
  Mr. McKinlay: I said with regard to two of the newspapers mentioned by the hon. Member that the editorial policy is controlled from London.
  Mr. Stewart: Even that is not true. To the best of my knowledge—and I have gone into this matter—the local Scottish editors of the "Daily Record" and the Scottish "Daily Express" have a very wide measure of freedom. That is my belief.
  I am merely making the case in contradiction of what the Secretary of State for Scotland said, that this matter cannot be set aside and ignored as something discussed by a few people. It really is a problem that everybody in Scotland is at least considering. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he will simply run into trouble if he continues to pursue his present course. Even if it were in Order, I am not here to defend those who want Scottish Home Rule—of course not. According to the current issue of the organ of the Scottish Nationalist Party they want complete Home Rule in the same sense as the Dominions have it. That is to say, they want complete control of defence, foreign affairs and all the rest of it. I regard that as utterly absurd. I believe that there are very few people in Scotland—a mere handful, and they are mostly cranks—who hold any such views.
  What most people want in Scotland is something quite different. I think that I have the whole House with me when I say that they feel that there is something wrong with the mechanics of government as it affects Scotland. They feel that somehow or other there is too much control from Westminster and, as has been said so often tonight, that more than ever since these many industries have been nationalised, they want to know the facts. Some say, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that there is no ground for that feeling, but as the hon. Member for North Edinburgh admits, his constituents are still asking him whether they are getting a fair deal. Why does the Secretary of State decline to grant to the people of Scotland the opportunity of knowing the answers in the form of facts?
  I have not the least fear that an inquiry would do any harm, still less that it would prove the case for Scottish Home Rule, but I feel that the widespread demands from Scotland from most reputable sources ought not to be ignored.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman talks about centralised control from London in terms of the nationalised industries, but surely he will admit that it applies in the case of private monopolies just as much as in the case of nationalised industries.
  Mr. Stewart: Exclude those and it makes no difference. I am merely making the case that there is throughout Scotland a querulous mood. I keep to that, I stand by it, and every hon. Member knows it quite well. The people are not satisfied. They are more dissatisfied now than ever before, and they want to know the facts. The right hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that he had this suggestion before him some time ago and that he turned it down on the ground that at that time it would have involved a great deal of work for the various civil servants who were very busy. I recognise that point. It may well be that at that time—I remember it well—the action of the right hon. Gentleman was right, but he must admit that since then the demand for the inquiry has greatly extended. The demand is much keener. I am sure that the Secretary of State is wrong if he does not agree. We cannot for ever refuse to our people the elementary right to know the facts. It is not unreasonable for them to ask.
  Mr. Willis: Which facts?
  Mr. Stewart: All the facts; all the elementary facts. This request was made long before the right hon. Gentleman was in the House. In the time of Sir Godfrey Collins people were asking the same question.
  Mr. Willis rose—
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman should not ask questions, because he puts his foot in it so easily.
  That question was asked in the time of Sir Godfrey Collins, and he answered it. He had an inquiry and he gave the facts. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that many people did not believe them, but that does not matter. They were the facts, and because a handful of cranks do not believe them is no reason why we should turn down the wisdom and necessity of giving the facts to the people. Is the right hon. Gentleman to be controlled in his policy by a handful of irresponsible people in Scotland?

  2131
  Surely not. I ask him to pay regard to the interests and desires of the great majority of sensible people. That report, to which I have referred, was presented to the House, and though I should ask for more, the purpose of this Debate is only to ask for that.
  I recognise all the difficulties, but I feel that the Secretary of State ought to grant what we desire. Of course, great advances have been made and great improvements have taken place in our Scottish government, and nobody is more pleased about that than I am. There was the Gilmour Committee and the subsequent efforts, for which the right hon. Gentleman himself is entitled to take credit, all of which have tended to improve administration in Scotland. However, in spite of all this, it still remains the fact that our people are not satisfied, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, so long as they are not satisfied, it is the duty of the Minister responsible for Scottish affairs to satisfy them by producing the facts.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. McLean Watson: I have listened to the complaint made from the opposite side of the House about the change that has taken place in Scottish administration through the nationalised industries. I wonder just how much truth there is in that plea. So far as I know, before the mines were nationalised, there were national agreements and a national organisation. It is just as true to say that the miners in Scotland were as much controlled by the British coalowners as today they are controlled by the National Coal Board. There is no difference. The miners of Scotland had as little say, or as much say, in the management of their affairs under the old system as they have under the new. They are not any worse off under the Coal Board than they were under the British coalowners—not one particle worse off.
  We also had Scottish railways managed by Scotsmen or by boards of directors in Scotland. Were not our railways owned by railway companies which did not give Scotland any more control over the railways than it has at the moment?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I hope the hon. Member will not stop there. Let him take
  2132
  the cases of gas and electricity. He must not stop there.
  Mr. Watson: As a matter of fact, gas and electricity are only now being mentioned when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite refers to nationalised industries, but we were thinking mainly of coal and the railways.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech, he will see that I spoke for a considerable time about gas and electricity.
  Mr. Watson: At any rate, in the two industries to which I have referred, the Scottish miners and the Scottish railwaymen have as much say under the new set-up as they had under the old. I am not going into the questions of gas and electricity, and I will not follow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because I want to refer to something else.
  Mr. Mathers: My hon. Friend makes reference to the railways. Does he recollect that, when there was a proposition made by Sir Eric Geddes in the original plans for the railway amalgamations, the Scottish railwaymen and the Scottish public campaigned strongly against the idea that there should be a railways group in Scotland alone and insisted upon the longitudinal grouping to link them up with the main lines from London?
  Mr. Watson: These facts are well-known, and I do not intend to go into them. As far as these two industries were concerned, neither the railwaymen nor the miners were any worse off, with regard to control in Scotland, than they are under the new set-up.
  I wanted to say something with regard to another aspect of this question. This House has tried to get rid of some of its duties by devolution. There are two systems in operation at the moment. We have the private legislation procedure whereby Private Bills come before commissions in Scotland. That is one method whereby we seek to relieve this House of certain duties. Then we have the Scottish Grand Committee system, which is also designed to relieve this House of certain duties.
  I wish, in particular, to address some remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have held very strong views on this question of devolution for many years, and, as far

  2133
  as I am concerned, I am not going to surrender them. I was not at the Scottish Convention, but, so far as Scottish affairs are concerned, I take second place to nobody. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not consider that this extension of opportunity to discuss Scottish Estimates and ever Second Readings of Scottish Bills in the Scottish Grand Committee is the last word so far as that matter is concerned. I hope that we are going to feel that even in a Scottish Grand Committee we have some power to do something. I agree with the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) that merely talking about Scottish Estimates or Scottish Bills in the Scottish Grand Committee is not enough.
  Mr. Woodburn: If my hon. Friend wishes to vote against the Scottish Estimates, he can do so because that power does exist.
  Mr. Watson: That is not the power I want. My right hon. Friend Knows that throughout Scotland there is a very strong and growing feeling in favour of more power being given to the representatives of Scotland, either here or elsewhere, to deal with problems affecting our country. If this discussion has helped to direct attention in Scotland to the fact that we are as much alive to the problems that affect our country as are the people of Scotland themselves, then it will not have been in vain.
  I would also remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) that he has a good deal of responsibility for the frustration which our local authorities feel with regard to local government administration. The Local Government Act of 1929 made some very big changes in the local government system of Scotland, and it is in consequence of the changes made by that particular Act of Parliament that Scottish local authorities are today feeling that frustration about which they complain so bitterly.
  I am not surprised that these local authorities took advantage of the Convention in Edinburgh in order to show their sympathy with that particular movement, because, from the local government point of view, I believe they feel that they, as well as the Scottish Members in this House, ought to be entrusted with far greater powers than they have at the
  2134
  moment. I think that by one means or another a greater opportunity should be given to Scottish Members to express Scottish feelings and to see that Measures which would greatly change the position of affairs in Scotland are passed into law.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am alarmed at my temerity in intervening in this Debate. I do so entirely as an individual private Member, and although I am entirely a Scotsman without a drop of English blood in my veins, I should like to put the possible reactions, as I see them, which might result in the minds of some English people amongst whom I live, to some of the things which have been said or suggested here this evening. I believe that those reactions can have possibly rather serious results if what has been said is either misread or exaggerated.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson) regarded one aspect of the matter rather more from the Parliamentary point of view and from the point of view of the reaction of local government to certain difficulties. But, of course, we can all assure him—and I am perfectly sure that he is aware of it—that there is hardly a single local governing authority, either north or south of the Border at the present time which is not subject to the same feeling of frustration.
  The feeling of frustration is not confined to north of the Border at all. It is, I think, very largely the result of the actions, not only of the present Parliament but of past Parliaments as well, which have concentrated to themselves too much power. The whole tendency has been to concentrate so much in the centre, as regards not only Scottish affairs but English affairs as well. This has made the position of local government as a whole one of extreme difficulty and great delicacy, and is bound to create among those who wish to devote their lives to work in local government considerable doubt as to whether they are, in fact, fulfilling important functions.
  Mr. Pryde: Would the hon. Gentleman define "frustration" as he has used the word?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I can think of many words, Parliamentary and unparliamentary, to describe it, but I think most hon.

  2135
  Members will realise what "frustration" means. It means that one wishes to do a job of work but feels one cannot do it. That, putting it shortly, is the sense in which I used the word.
  Having, as most Scotsmen have, many friends and an abundance of relatives north of the Border, although I would not claim to know as much about this matter as those hon. Members who represent Scottish Divisions, I cannot help feeling that there is great truth in the suggestion that there is a demand for a greater amount of Scottish representation of feeling, sentiment and desire. In the broadest sense, that is perfectly true. How far that feeling grows as a result of agitation, how far it is natural and how far it is practical, I think are questions which must be very carefully sifted.
  Speaking as one who lives south of the Border among Englishmen, I would like to make this very clear. I have been associated with industrialists and manufacturers who wish to forge new links and strengthen existing links between Scottish and English firms. Those of us who work in the south as manufacturers realise that we have in Scotland something which unfortunately is lacking south of the Border. In Scotland we have tremendous skill in many fields, in manufacturing for instance. It may be found in England, but I think it is exercised with greater enthusiasm north of the Border than it is in the south.
  I think it is the most enlivening experience that one can have to go north of the Border and go round a factory in Scotland where one finds immensely keen work going on, with people learning their jobs and others exercising the skill which has been passed down to them from generations, to a degree which is not always found south of the Border. It is a tremendous experiment. Personally, I get a tremendous kick out of it. But those of us who are English manufacturers, who wish to forge these links, who wish to work with Scottish manufacturers, might, unless we knew our country north of the Border very well—and every Englishman does not—get a little bit alarmed and doubtful if it were put into our minds that some strong nationalist feeling, if one calls it that, was being worked up in Scotland. It would become almost embarrassing for these English
  2136
  manufacturers to make it known that there were these links between English and Scottish firms—embarrassing, for instance, to set up enterprises in Scotland under English control, if we are to be as narrow in our view as all that. That is not nonsense by any means.
  Mr. Rankin: Would the hon. Gentleman find it equally embarrassing to set up enterprises in Canada or America?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Indeed, yes. I can assure hon. Members who have not had experience of trying to set up enterprises in countries overseas—even where they are British Dominions—that sometimes it can be extremely embarrassing. One has to make it perfectly clear that one is not robbing those already there of something which they could do equally well themselves. To take an example of an extreme nature, it is sometimes equally embarrassing if an American firm wishes to set up an enterprise in this country. It is embarrassing in the United States if they have to persuade their own people that what they intend to do in this country will not affect their workpeople and their enterprises in their own country.
  Let us be frank about it. There will be these problems; but they will arise only if we try to draw a specific hard line as between one part of the United Kingdom and another. These difficulties only arise, and the fears resulting from them only arise, if we try to make too much of a division between England and Scotland.
  Mr. Gallacher: This talk about English and American people coming to erect industries in Scotland is very interesting, but could the hon. Member or anyone else tell me why it is that Scotland is the only country in the world which has not developed its docks in relation to its capacity for shipbulding? That is far more important than any question of Englishmen or Americans coming into the country.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: If I had time, I would turn to the question of docks, and I could tell the hon. Member quite a lot about that subject, too. If he looks at his atlas, however, and sees things in relation to geography, he will find the answer. But let us keep to the point about manufacturing, which is the point with which I want to deal. I am not saying for one moment

  2137
  that those of us who are Scotsmen and that Scottish firms are wrong or that Scottish industry is wrong in pushing itself forward as essentially as Scottish industry. That is grand; that is magnificent.
  I think these exhibitions and fairs, the Scottish Council and enterprises like the Engineering Centre in Glasgow are doing magnificent work in that direction. But it is a very interesting example that in the Engineering Centre in Glasgow some 50 per cent. of the firms exhibiting are English firms. That is quite right and proper and it all helps to forge these links and to strengthen the links which already exist as between Scottish and English enterprises. I think it is right and sound common sense, and I believe it is a great help and, above all, a real encouragement to Scottish enterprises and Scottish people. But let us be quite frank about this aspect of the matter; let us take it almost reductio ad absurdum; let us assume that Scottish industries and enterprises had been segregated from the English. I do not think that is possible, but let us assume that somehow it has been done. What a tremendous loss that would be to my own fellow-countrymen in Scotland.
  Take one example. There is a tremendous shortage in Scotland of certain types of lighter engineering skill which has not been developed north of the Border because our natural resources and such reasons led to the development of heavier lines of industry. That skill has been imported, to a great degree, from the south. There are many firms, which we all know, which have imported skilled personnel to train people north of the Border, and have brought them up from the south. Is that not of value? If we attempted to segregate as far as some would suggest, or would appear to suggest, should we be doing our own country any good? I believe we should be doing it immense harm.
  Do not let us do or say anything that would put that sort of suggestion into people's minds. These industrialists are not philanthropists, of course. I do not suggest they are. However, they are prepared to help in the development of Scottish industry side by side with that of industry south of the Border. Things can be done and are done—let us take care not to do them—which put ideas, thoughts, doubts into their minds that do
  2138
  not help the situation. Loving Scotland as I do—and I am prepared to do anything for Scotland, just as I am prepared to do anything for my own constituency in England—I do beg every hon. Member in this House who speaks on these matters not to give any excuse to those who would say "Go a little bit steady. We have been through that when the Clyde got a bad name."
  Rightly or wrongly it got a bad name at one time, and it stuck too long, and people said things would never get any better. We have seen the effect of that sort of thing. People said, "It is of no good to go to the Clyde. There is a whole smear of trouble there which will last a lifetime, and we shall never get anything done there." How unwise, how unjust that was. We have lived that down. All along Clydeside now we produce things better than we find them produced south of the Border. All that sort of talk is now just nonsense. For heaven's sake do not let us start any sort of fears that would stop that help going to Scotland which is long overdue.
  Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman ought to be the first ambassador of Scotland to England.
  9.7 p.m.
  Mr. Scollan: Having listened to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) I am a little afraid that he has missed the whole point in raising his own particular fears with regard to the effect an agitation for Scottish Home Rule would have on industrialists, and on their bringing enterprise into Scotland. Let me remind him that though Scottish enterprise in these last few years has had to go to England for very highly skilled personnel to take on the technical operations necessary, there was a period in the history of Scotland when growing English industries went to Scotland and brought down the superior skilled craftsmen with technical ability to rear those industries in England.
  I would remind the hon. Member—and he can remind his friends about this—that the Industrial Revolution took place in Scotland. Actually, mechanical engineering had its birth there and its earliest developments. However—and this is the point in history that we must always emphasise for the benefit of the Sassenachs who do not know—during the period of, and

  2139
  because of, the Act of Union the centralised government was in England and the natural trend was the attraction of England from Scotland—and from Ireland and every other possession—of the development of all kinds of industry. That was a natural thing. We cannot go back in history and say that "So and so" was to blame for that. That was the set-up at that particular period. Had the Government centre been in Edinburgh the same thing would have happened in reverse, drawing people to the north. So we get to the stage where people in Scotland who know Scottish history as well as English history have always the feeling at the back of their minds that the Act of Union was in some way responsible for hampering the initiative and the development of Scottish industries.
  That is one of the things which we cannot get rid of in Scotland. I am an unrepentant Home Ruler of many years standing. When I joined the old Scottish Home Rule Association, the majority of the people in favour of Scottish Home Rule and who agitated for it were drawn from the working class. Now things have taken a complete turn. Since the advent of a Labour Government at Westminster a new kind of people are now agitating for Scottish Home Rule, drawn from the upper class. What is the reason for this particular change?
  When I joined the Scottish Home Rule Association practically the whole of Scotland was a depressed area. We had thousands of unemployed and every Saturday morning, year in and year out, one could go to the Clydeside and see a great passenger liner leaving for Canada or America with people who could not get a living in Scotland. We had the Salvation Army—much to its credit—and other charity organisations collecting funds, and we had Scottish landlords always prepared to give the crofter every encouragement to get out of the country. They shipped them abroad every Saturday morning.
  The people in Scotland of the working class believe that the reason for that was due to the centralised Government in London, and to the fact that every industry was encouraged to move to the south rather than to stay in the north. I can
  2140
  remember when in the County of Renfrew there were bleaching factories of all descriptions, where one could see thousands of articles being bleached out in the old-fashioned manner. The relics of those old factories can still be seen. I can remember when every little village and parts of the City of Glasgow had their cotton mills, the great Lancashire cotton trade being then only in a stage of development. All those mills were closed down not entirely because of the centralised Government in London, but because of amalgamations which were in the nature of developments of capitalist companies who bought them up in order to centralise production and gave many of the little concerns shares in that centralised production.
  I can remember working in the Arrol Johnson motor works at Paisley when they were one of the pioneers of the motor trade. They moved to Dumfries and ultimately closed down when the centralisation of the whole motorcar industry took place. I could go over innumerable cases of that sort in my lifetime. The people said that was entirely due to the centralised Government in the south and the only thing to do was to have Scottish Home Rule in order to develop their own industries. That was the idea at that time. Then along came the amalgamation of the railways. The Glasgow and South Western Railway, the Caledonian Railway and the North British Railways were all operating their own boats on the Clyde and their own railway carriages in competition with one another, but after the amalgamation, the first thing that happened was that the up-to-date, new carriages on the Caledonian and South Western Railways were hawked off to the south, and up came the old English horse boxes which nobody in England would travel in, and people said, "Here is the result of a centralised Government in the south."
  Mr. Burden: I had something to do with this. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Scottish railways could, if they had liked, have had a railway system of their own apart from England, but that they definitely asked to be associated with English companies?
  Mr. Scollan: Yes, that is perfectly true, but I am talking about the effects, what happened after they were amalgamated.
  Mr. Ross: What about wages?
  Mr. Scollan: I want to develop my own case in my own way. I am pointing out that there was a difference.
  Now, the people who are identified with the Scottish independence movement today are an entirely different class of people from those who were identified with the Scottish Home Rule Movement at that time, of whom I was one. What is the reason? Why do we find the Duke of Montrose, in a very theatrical manner, signing the covenant? Why did he not identify himself with the movement in those days, when it was composed of people who were concerned about the economic necessities which compelled people to leave the country? Why did these people not then identify themselves with the movement?
  There has been a development in Scotland, and a large section of people are identifying themselves with the Scottish independence and nationalist movement because, although up to the moment none of them has openly said so, it is evident from their speeches, and when one sees the type of people they are, that they are only concerned because we have a Socialist Government; they want to find a chance of breaking away, thinking that if they can do so the Scottish people will rally behind them, and that they will get away from some of the things they do not like about this Government. When looking at these people, people like myself, who sincerely believe that a case can be made for Scottish Home Rule, feel that our faith is weakened in going forward if we have to identify ourselves with them.
  Let us consider the case on its merits. What is the trouble, and what should we do? I am very pleased to see the Leader of the House here, because I think he was largely responsible for giving the Scottish Grand Committee six days in which to consider the Scottish Estimates. I put it to him, and to the House generally, that the weakness of the present set-up—and I am not blaming anybody for it; it has lasted a very long time—for administration in Scotland is that it robs the Scottish people of the initiative. I do not care how good the Secretary of State for Scotland is. Bring down the Apostle Paul and give him the job and all he could do would be to administer what he has been told to do. Even if there were six Under-Secretaries
  2142
  it would make no difference; they would only have to carry out what they were told. The initiative is taken away.
  Let me take up the question of the Scottish Estimates. We are not consulted, on the six days that the Scottish Grand Committee meets to consider the Estimates, as to the items on which we are to spend the money. We are not allowed to have any initiative in putting anything new in the Estimates. The Secretary of State tells us, quite rightly, that we have the right to disagree with the Estimates the Government have put forward. We have that right, not as a Committee, but as Members of Parliament, who can put down a Motion against an Estimate. For example, perhaps I see something in the Estimates with which I disagree. I can raise the matter in Scottish Grand Committee, and if I can get my colleagues to agree with my point of view, the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), according to the party system, will oppose it. He dare not fall in behind us because his prestige would be lowered in the eyes of the Conservatives in Scotland.
  Suppose that by some miracle common sense prevailed with him and he and his colleagues fell in behind Scollan, a Motion could then be put down upon which we could all agree. But do not forget that the party in office has a party discipline, which makes any idea of such a thing happening utterly impossible. It means it is only lip service to say that this can be done. The Scottish people ought to have the right, not only to be consulted and to be on consultative committees to advise the Secretary of State, but to examine the needs of Scotland within the framework of the United Kingdom. I do not believe in this proposal for separation. We are living in an age when the tendency is to keep together and not to separate. Is it logical that the people of Argyllshire should be able to elect their council, which can sit down and consider what is the best thing to do for the county and levy a rate to do it, but the people of Scotland have no one to say what is best for the country as a whole? Obviously the thing is all wrong. I have no complaint about the present Secretary of State. He is as good as the best we have had.
  Mr. Gallacher: That is not saying very much.
  Mr. Scollan: It is the system that is all wrong. I ask the Leader of the House to give the matter careful consideration, because he is the kingpin and will also be the kingpin after the next Election. I am pinning my faith on him to get out of his London complex and to do something for Scotland.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: We have learned with astonishment that the National Liberal Party and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) can unashamedly come forward and castigate the present Secretary of State and this party for that about which during the past 50 years, when they were in power, they did nothing. It seems rather odd that at a time when the Scottish Convention is signing up all sorts, along with the Duke of Montrose, with one section of the Church of Scotland in rebellion and certain misguided members of the T.U.C. and also of other trade unions helping, that the National Liberals should suddenly discover again the urgency of doing something about further devolution for Scotland. It is one of the final tactical moves of the party before its complete dissolution at the next Election.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Speaking for myself, in 1935 I put proposals to the then Secretary of State on much the same lines as those which have been brought forward tonight.
  Mr. MacMillan: The hon. Member had less success with the representations which he made to the Government, of which he was such a strong supporter and would be still if they were in power, than we have had in making our representations to the present Government. It is agreed by all Scottish Members of each party in this House that in recent years we have gone a considerable way further than was ever done before in strengthening the powers of Scottish Members of Parliament. The White Paper proposals on the Scottish Grand Committee were accepted by all of us, and have resulted in greater legislative power being given to that Committee than ever before.
  Mr. Gallacher: No. They have more powers of discussion, but not of legislation.
  Mr. MacMillan: They have power to take Second Readings of Scottish Bills.
  Mr. Gallacher: Which is discussion.
  Mr. MacMillan: That cannot be applied to Estimates and Supply, which are functions of all Parliaments from time immemorial. The English in this matter are in exactly the same position as we are. They have to come to the House of Commons and debate their Estimates. In that direction Scotland is not in any worse position. I am merely trying to illustrate the point that on Supply we are not at any disadvantage compared with other sections of this House. We in Scotland ask for twice as much for certain purposes as they do in England, and they cannot get it any more than we can. Their supply only comes from this House sitting as a Committee of Supply, in just the same way as we in Scotland get our finances.
  After listening to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) and the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities talking a great deal, I came to the conclusion that there was little of substance in their remarks. One would imagine that all this desire for devolution had, in fact, started since 1945, but I can remember the time when Mr. Tom Johnston in this House appealed to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman when he was Secretary of State for Scotland and to his predecessors and successors in office, as well as to the Liberals—
  Mr. N. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman says that I stated that all this has arisen since 1945. In my speech I said that this idea had been growing over the past 40 years.
  Mr. MacMillan: It may have been growing over the past 40 years, but like the awareness of the hon. Gentleman it only seems to have come to light during the last two or three years. I know that the National Liberal Party will very soon disappear. I know something of their past, and their prospects for the future are very poor. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) did, I know, make proposals in the past—so did Tom Johnston—to the party of which the hon. Member was a supporter, but they were turned down in this House. Tom Johnston said time and time again that it was an impossible situation for the Secretary

  2145
  of State to be attempting to carry out all the many functions of his office with full efficiency. What reply did he get? He made no progress.
  The same case was put up by the hon. Member opposite for certain administrative devolutionary changes. How far did he get until a year and a half ago? He got nowhere with his own party and friends when they were in office. He did not obtain the six days discussion of Estimates and the Second Reading discussion of Bills by the Scottish Grand Committee or the Scottish Economic Conference, for what it is worth—I have not yet completely made my mind up on that—in the days when the hon. Member's party—excluding himself if he wishes, and I can well understand him wishing to be excluded—was not fighting for devolution.
  The nationalisation aspect has been overdone. There had been nationalisation of other institutions—the Bank of England and the Post Office—long before the days of the Socialist Government. The nationalisation case was argued out by hon. Members, as was Prestwick. They are considerably more silent now about Prestwick than they were 2½ years ago because they know that while it was a mere landing strip before the war it is today a great airport and has developed under Socialism and under nationalised civil aviation, as it would never have done in private hands.
  These changes that have come about in regard to the Scottish Grand Committee, the improvements which the hon. Member for East Fife, if he cares to make the claim, has asked for but which did not come when his friends were in power have come, for what they are worth, in the last three years.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Member recollects that the initiative for these very proposals of which he is speaking came from the Opposition here. It was we who put a proposition on the Order Paper.
  Mr. MacMillan: Far from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) has said what is perfectly true: the whole inspiration came from the old Scottish I.L.P. movement, the champions of Scottish Home Rule, who I will not say were completely wrong in the circumstances to which their claims
  2146
  were applicable and whose proposals could have been worked without danger to Scotland. All that work was done in opposition to people like the hon. Members opposite. Only a year or two before the war Tom Johnston, who is at times a great favourite with hon. Members opposite, when it suits them, on points on which he differs from the Labour Party, used the argument for the devolution to the Scottish Grand Committee of greater powers and advocated additional Under-Secretaries. I do not believe that the latter proposal will make any difference or be of any particular advantage under the present set-up. I am not advocating that for one moment. I have seen him just as frustrated as hon. Members pretend for tactical purposes they are now. They are the people who frustrated him. We made no progress in their days of power.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: The hon. Member is making a point about the taking of Second Readings upstairs, but all that does is to clear the House for English Business.
  Mr. MacMillan: I do not know exactly what the hon. Member wants. He agreed that the scheme should be put into operation and he did not, to my knowledge, criticise it.
  Mr. Macpherson: Yes, I did.
  Mr. MacMillan: The hon. Member did not effectually criticise it, by which I mean go into the Lobby against it.
  Mr. Woodburn: I had the agreement of every party in this House to the White Paper as it was presented to the House—
  Mr. Gallacher: Correction.
  Mr. Woodburn:—including the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).
  Mr. Gallacher: No.
  Mr. Woodburn: He only made the qualification that he reserved to himself the right to ask for something more.
  Mr. Gallacher: Much more.
  Mr. MacMillan: I do not want to go any further into the question of unanimity or lack of unanimity. It can be said that virtually every party, shall I say 600, or whatever it is, out of the total of

  2147
  hon. Members of this House did agree to try the scheme of giving to the Scottish Grand Committee Second Readings, six days' Estimates and the Scottish Economic Conference. We all agreed to that. None of us has come to any conclusion about it. It has been working only a few Parliamentary months. Certainly it has cleared this House for further discussions and given more time to our English and Welsh colleagues—and our Scottish colleagues, too, if they like to take part in Debates on the Floor of the House rather than in the Scottish Grand Committee.
  So far as I am concerned—I do not know how many of my hon. Friends I speak for, but I speak for some—this experiment which is going on, is not the final decision or set-up. We agreed that we would observe this experiment and how it worked and if it worked satisfactorily improve it from time to time as we went; and, if we did not agree finally, to scrap any idea of any pressure from Members on this side for further devolution. If the experiment was not sufficient we did not bind ourselves to press for further reforms, and I do not see why we should be in any way accused of so doing by Members of the National Liberal Party. I would suggest that if they are so keen about governing Scotland, they might send a candidate from their party to my own constituency which they have abandoned completely without hope of representation by their party. Let them come to the outposts and fight and do something, and not scuttle to soft places like Dumfries and East Fife—
  Mr. Rankin: Dumfries is not safe.
  Mr. MacMillan: They go to all the comfortable places but they are not willing to come to the outposts and fight. I want three candidates in my Division so that I shall be quite sure of winning the seat—it is a purely tactical move on my part. But it would also test the sincerity of their party if they came out to fight for the things in which they believe and if they think we are not doing enough to give devolution to Scotland. I would probably beat them to it.
  We are observing an experiment, but we have not come to a conclusion. No party in this House has yet come to a conclusion but every party is bound to accept the experiment. Give it a chance
  2148
  for a few years to see how it works out, and make concrete suggestions for further administrative devolution and improvement of the scheme as it is working on the White Paper basis. Hon. Members opposite have made no specific suggestions as to how that can be done. It is no use hon. Members opposite saying, all of a sudden, a few months before an Election that they have become vitally and urgently conscious of the failure of this experiment or saying that it is due to nationalisation. We had nationalisation before this experiment. They have not offered a single suggestion.
  The hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities talked about nationalisation; he talked about bees—all sorts of bees. He talked about everything, but did not make any suggestions as to what he would do in the matter. Hon. Members opposite went to the edge of the risk of Scottish devolution and Home Rule, and they did not always distinguish between one thing and the other.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If the hon. Member had listened at the beginning to Mr. Speaker's Ruling, he would have realised that it was impossible to make any suggestions which would lead to legislation.
  Mr. MacMillan: The right hon. Gentleman did not make any suggestion in respect of administrative devolution, not a single suggestion of any kind—not a whisper of a suggestion did he offer to the House. There was nothing but criticism of the nationalised industries. If they propose to undo the effects of nationalisation, that would involve legislation as well. Nor did the hon. Member for Dumfries offer any suggestion. The Scottish people told us to nationalise these industries and we have carried out our instructions upon this as upon other things. They have not reproached us on these points. Hon. Members opposite can only attack us, not because we have not carried out our pledges to Scotland, but because, unlike them, we have carried out those pledges of nationalisation and of administration with a certain amount of legislative devolution as well. They cannot point to any specific thing which we have not done and which they have advocated during the past three years—certainly since they agreed to

  2149
  stand by this scheme and to observe its working.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: The very thing we are advocating tonight is what we have been advocating all along.
  Mr. MacMillan: The hon. Member is not advocating any specific thing. He is just talking, and if he is not talking through his hat, he is talking through nothing at all. He has not put forward any proposal of any kind, nor has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Scottish Universities.
  Mr. Macpherson: After all, one does not keep a dog and bark oneself. If one asks for a committee of inquiry to be set up, what is the good of making a lot of suggestions first?
  Mr. MacMillan: What does the hon. Member want to inquire into? He accepted this scheme and he is pledged to give it a trial and so is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Scottish Universities. I do not think there is any difference among the parties about that. It was decided to give the scheme a genuine trial and I suggest that it has worked as well as could be expected. In any case, I do not know what spectacular results we could have expected from it. I think myself that it is as much a concession to English and Welsh Members as it is to Scottish Members. It has helped all hon. Members, and the scheme is all the better for that. It has worked well so far. In time, let us go further. I believe that in the light of our present economic circumstances we should have a considerably greater measure of devolution—I mean legislative devolution as well as any other kind, but I cannot discuss that. I challenge hon. Members to say what they mean. They should propose something, put something definite before us and not merely put forward the idea of a committee of inquiry without making some suggestion about what should happen.
  9.43 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: My first inclination on intervening to address the House during a Debate on Scottish affairs is to offer an apology. More by accident than by design I came into the Chamber at the start of this Debate and I have remained throughout, and my original feeling of apology has gradually
  2150
  waned. The Debate has made it clear that the issues at stake are not merely Scottish but that they affect every part of the country. Perhaps I might venture a personal explanation of my wish to take part in a Scottish Debate. Although I am Welsh, I have a little Scottish blood in my veins which some of my hon. Friends suggest is a good mixture. My wife is English with a dash of Irish, so our daughter might be referred to as the Union Jack. That personal anecdote merely illustrates the manner in which all the four nationalities of the United Kingdom have become mingled until we are rapidly reaching a stage where we shall almost forget our national origin.
  Again, when I listen to a Debate of this kind, although I appreciate and sometimes admire it, and, indeed, occasionally become rather frightened by the aggressive patriotism of some hon. Members for Scottish constituencies, I bear in mind the fact that, wherever we go in England, very largely in Wales, indeed all over the world, we find Scotsmen. A large part of the population of the Dominion of Canada is of Scots origin and there is a fairly large instalment of Scottish blood in American veins. So we could go on, illustrating the fact that nationality, as it used to be understood, is not entirely relevant to a discussion of Government and of the functions of Government and administration.
  When I think of the historical background of Scotland in relation to England, I try not to forget the historical background of Wales in relation to England. Although I am Welsh, I represent an English constituency, and some of the hon. Members for Scottish constituencies are actually Welshman. There are two, to my own knowledge, although only one has contributed to the Debate. Is it not also a fact that we have Scottish Members representing English constituencies all over England? In reality, between the four countries, we are reaching such a commingling which might be termed internationalism.
  The political background of the development of Scotland is peculiar to itself. We had a Scottish Parliament and we had a Welsh Parliament, but, whereas Wales was conquered and absorbed, Scotland was incorporated by the Act of Union. That is the difference, and from that difference arises the whole

  2151
  history of Scottish administration in relation to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Let us take the case of Ireland. Why is it that we have a different set-up in Northern Ireland from that either in Wales or in Scotland? If there is justification for a Northern Ireland Parliament, geographically, nationally, and even culturally, there is quite as much justification for a Scottish Parliament, but it does not work out that way, and that is all there is to it. Politics and political developments in Ireland took an entirely different course fom political development either in Wales or Scotland in relation to the Paliament of the United Kingdom.
  Therefore, as realists, we must now approach the problem of administration, the problems arising from modern economics and from modern political developments, and we must face all these facts from the point of vew of what is best, not only for a part, but for the whole. Let us take the economic development of Scotland in relation to England. We had the Scots pouring across the Border into all the industries of England, and we have a fairly good mixture of English in Scotland itself. The more this development goes on, and as it goes on, the more difficult it will become to recognise a Scotsman when we meet one or even to recognise a Welshman when we meet one.
  If that is not agreed to, the only conclusion I can reach is that when a Welshman or an Englishman migrates into Scotland he acquires by some peculiar chemical process the characteristics of a Scotsman or that those characteristics become more evident in the generation which follows from the marriage of the Englishman to a Scottish lass, and so it goes on. At any rate, I suggest that this question of administration and devolution, and all the rest of the terms that have been used, is not a peculiarly Scottish problem. It applies to the whole-face of British politics—indeed, it applies to the whole face of world politics—as to what it is proper and wise to retain or to take into centralised control, and what it is wise to give to a more provincialised arm or feature or characteristic of government. In other words, it is a question of what is the best marriage between local government, national government and national administration.
  2152
  That is a problem that is not peculiar to Scotland. It applies to Wales and it applies to England itself, because, let there be no doubt about it, in some quarters in England we have the same feeling that there is too much centralisation here and too much centralisation there. It is a question, therefore, of finding the best means of effecting a marriage between national government, national administration and local government administration. I feel convinced that we are on the verge of making fundamental changes in local government in this country because in many respects, the old set-up is failing to meet the needs of the time. Even our Conservative opponents have from time to time realised that fact and have made certain changes in the administrative setup, that is, in the power of various councils. They have considered what powers were to be given to them, what existing powers were to be enlarged, and what powers were to be taken completely to the centre. That is a continuous problem that has to be dealt with in the evolution of the governmental system itself, both in the centre and in the localities.
  That being so, I as a Welshman representing an English constituency suggest that what we have been discussing tonight is not a peculiarly Scottish problem, but one which affects all parts of the country and relates to the question of what is the proper set-up for modern legislation and modern administration. I think that the more we discuss these matters, the more we shall get away from the entirely nationalistic approach and the closer we shall get to the effective administrative problem in relation to the national legislature itself
  9.55 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): It is perhaps rather paradoxical, and yet quite characteristic, that during one of our longest Adjournment Debates, for a period of over four hours, Scottish Members, seasoned with a little Welsh rarebit at the end, should have discussed the alleged lack of opportunity of self-expression for Scottish Members.
  If we are going to tackle this problem seriously, as I think most responsible people in Scotland want to tackle the problem, we must get down to the problem with well-defined and clear-cut ideas. We do not want to indulge in vague expressions,

  2153
  in woolly thinking or in large generalities. We must know exactly what we want and where we are going. I think most Members will agree with that. Accordingly, no purpose is served if Members come here and say that there is a growing opinion in Scotland for "this," without defining what "this" is. It is no use saying that the problems of Scotland require greater investigation, if they do not desiderate what these problems are. There is no use coming here and saying, "Let us have a Royal Commission or a Select Committee," without setting forth what, in their view, would be in general the terms of reference and the types of subjects which would be dealt with by that Royal Commission or Select Committee.
  This question of devolution is a matter which is capable of various interpretations. One merely requires to have regard to the policies of the various national parties in Scotland to realise the great extremes to which this matter can go. Accordingly, we cannot come forward with a serious proposal to the Government to set up a Royal Commission or a Select Committee, or any other form of inquiry, unless we have definitely in our minds the subject matter which will form the basis of that inquiry, the limits and the objects of that inquiry, with a view to ascertaining what will follow at the inquiry. Merely to have an inquiry in vacuo takes us nowhere. It was suggested in the Debate that we required an inquiry of this nature. That is quite a common cry among a certain section—I think a small section—of the people of Scotland. But once again we find there a lack of specification. It is said "We want to know the facts," and if one poses the simple question "What facts?" it is very difficult to find out.
  I know that the rules of this Debate circumscribed the statements of certain Members in the sense that they could not indicate what they wanted where legislation would be required. But the Debate ranged over a very wide field, and although the actual legislative action which might be required to follow out a certain policy would have been out of Order, there is nothing that I know of which would have precluded hon. Members from discussing the principles of the problems which confronted Scotland and which they wish to have investigated. We
  2154
  had none of them. We were asked to give the answers in an inquiry of this nature, but, if I may respectfully say so, we could not find from anybody the answers to what. Surely we were entitled to know what is at the back of the minds of the people asking for such an inquiry—what it is they wish to inquire into.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: I did state right at the beginning of the Debate that the object of the inquiry was to look into the facts in relation to the various proposals that have been made for devolution. The Lord Advocate is not unaware of these proposals by official bodies. It is no use saying that it is in vacuo.
  The Lord Advocate: The number of proposals which have been made are legion, but we are entitled to know which of these is referred to. Is it to inquire into every proposal which has been put forward in Scotland?—and not for the last four years, not for the last 49 years, for there were movements of this nature in the days of Walter Scott. I do not want to go any further into that.
  It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]
  The Lord Advocate: I do not want to go any further into that because the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is such an acknowledged expert on this subject that, if I went too deeply into it, he might trip me up. I mean, of course, not the subject of devolution, but the subject of Walter Scott.
  Surely we are entitled to know for which problem the Royal Commission or the Select Committee is desired. If we go beyond that and assume—which I deny—that there was sufficient specification as to what was required, we come to the two questions posed by my right hon. Friend—first, is there a justification for this demand, and secondly, if there is a justification, is the time opportune? Again, with one or two exceptions, hon. Members did not address their minds to these two problems. The justification for such an inquiry, if we knew what the inquiry was into, would be that the facts are not now available which would be

  2155
  made available under a Royal Commission or a Select Committee or some fact-finding inquiry.
  Let us examine the situation to ascertain whether these facts are not now available because, if they are available at the present time, surely there is no justification for setting up an intermediary in order to collect these facts and hand them over to us. If these facts are at present ascertainable, surely it is our duty to make those facts known to ourselves without going through all the procedures, all the solemnity, all the expense and all the window dressing of a Royal Commission or Select Committee.
  What is the position? Roughly speaking, I think the inquiry into facts, as far as I could gather, was in relation, first, to the economic facts of the country and, secondly, the financial relationship vis-à-vis England. Let us take these in turn. It is said that we require such an inquiry because the present information is deficient. I hope I am not doing the hon. Member an injustice; I think that was the word he used and it was certainly the sense of the word he used. But he did not say in what sense the information was deficient. It is not good enough—and I say this not in any sense of severe criticism but with a full sense of responsibility—to say we require a fact-finding committee or some form of inquiry because the economic facts are deficient without pointing out definitely in what respect they are deficient.
  We have the White Paper on Industry. But what has happened? We have had it for the last three years. It has been improved every year. We are going to have the Census of Production and Distribution, and it is our intention to have a booklet explaining in detail the administration of Scotland, the work of the Departments and the extent to which we have devolution in Scotland. All that information is already available for those who wish to look. The booklet is coming out shortly. We appreciate—and it has been manifested in the course of the Debate tonight—that it is perhaps desirable to do this for some people in order to get their ideas orientated properly. The result is that the statistical information in the White Paper gives all the information necessary in relation to the Scottish Departments.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that there is one set of information which all Scottish Members want and all Scotland wants and which the Government have denied us; and that is a statement of the details of the cuts that are proposed in the administration of Scotland?
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman should not be so precipitate, because I still have 25 minutes, and I intend to deal with a number of these problems. Accordingly, we feel that this information is already available. The people who are most clamant, particularly outside this Chamber, for this fact-finding inquiry of one sort or another are, in my opinion, people who never take the trouble to examine those papers in order to ascertain the facts. If we ascertain the facts through a committee or commission, as my right hon. Friend said, it does not necessarily mean we are going to get general acceptance of the facts, because some people merely take the findings of such a commission or committee to use them for their own particular purposes and for their own particular policies. I think the case quoted by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) bears that out, because after the inquiry made in 1935 by Sir Godfrey Collins nothing was done by responsible people, and the only people who tried to make anything out of it were a few people who were members of small splinter parties, who merely tried to make some political advantage out of it.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Sir Godfrey Collins reported the facts as he saw them and they turned out just as he said, and there was no sense in doing anything about it.
  The Lord Advocate: Obviously, because dissident people refused to be satisfied, and they always refuse to be satisfied unless they are given everything which they require. However, my point is that if information is available for them, and they have only to take the trouble to get it, then there is no justification for a Royal Commission or a Select Committee or other form of inquiry.
  However, we are prepared to go further than we have done. The White Paper is an innovation during the lifetime of this Administration. More information is

  2157
  being given to the people of this country as a result of this Government's administration and actions—and I say this with all sincerity—than has ever been given in the history of our Parliamentary life. If the information is there, what is the case for having a committee to serve it up on a plate to the people who will not take the trouble to go into it themselves? That is the case so far as statistical information is concerned on the economic side.
  How much further, then, would they want us to go? Once we go beyond that we get into the realm of real difficulty, because if we try to compare the amount of economic wealth created in Scotland with the amount of economic wealth created in England, we get into so many complications that no Royal Commission or any inquiry could ever eradicate them.
  Let us take a simple example—the building of the "Queen Mary" at Clydebank. Should we be entitled to take credit for all the wealth resulting from the creation of the "Queen Mary" because it was assembled at Clydebank when many of the component parts that went to make up the ship may have come from south of the Border? I use that merely as an illustration, but the same case runs throughout the whole of industry in Scotland, because the whole economy of Scotland is so dovetailed into the economy of England that in almost any walk of life there is this constant flow to and from each country of materials, that are being utilised in the creation of ultimate wealth, that cannot be properly assigned to one country or the other. If we are to have a true investigation into the whole economic relationship of the two countries to see to what extent Scotland is independent of England or England is independent of Scotland, it will be necessary to carry on the examination to that very level, and that is obviously outwith the competence of any committee or any commission.
  That leaves the question of the financial relationship. There, again, no one, I am sure, with any experience would minimise the tremendous task of sorting out the amount of money spent by the Treasury directly or indirectly in Scotland. If we were to try to balance the amount of taxation reaped in Scotland, which would require to be both direct and indirect taxation, and compare that with the
  2158
  amount of money sent by the Treasury into Scotland we should require to go into every ramification of Scottish industrial and social life in order to get a true picture. The extent of such an inquiry is almost beyond comprehension. It is no use to take a rough figure for this purpose because it would not be accurate and would be more than misleading.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart indicated dissent.
  The Lord Advocate: It is no use the hon. Member for East Fife shaking his head, because that is a fact, which, I think, any reasonable person will acknowledge. If the hon. Gentleman demurs, I am willing to give way for a couple of minutes to let him indicate how a financial balance could be struck otherwise than along the lines I have suggested.
  Mr. Stewart: It was once done by Sir Godfrey Collins in the case of Scotland, and has been done in the case of Northern Ireland. Why cannot it be done again?
  The Lord Advocate: It cannot be done for Scotland in a manner conclusive, accurate or reliable. Anything Sir Godfrey Collins did was only on a broad, general basis, and a lot of assumptions have been made, rightly or wrongly, which have defeated the reliability of the conclusions reached.
  If we are to do this we shall not do it in a haphazard manner, a general manner, or in a manner inconclusive. It will have to be done in such a way as to give a proper reflection of the financial and fiscal relationship between the two countries. The amount of manpower which would have to be devoted to that is simply enormous. We have to make up our minds about this question. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have to make up their minds about this question. This would undoubtedly involve a great deal of manpower at the present time.
  We come to the question of whether or not it is opportune. Already we have complaints from the other side that there are far too many people in the Civil Service, too many bureaucrats, and too many people doing unproductive work. There are people who say that cuts of £250 million are only a bagatelle; they should be double or treble. What is

  2159
  going to happen if we are to find the necessary manpower to work out these problems at the present time? It is not only the personnel involved in carrying out the investigation, it is the repercussions which such an inquiry would have in every Government Department and every industry in the country under private enterprise. If we were to go into this question properly it would mean that we should have to go into the books and accounts of private enterprise, as much as we should into the books and accounts of nationalised industry and Government Departments. That is perfectly true if we are to get a reliable result from such an inquiry, and anything short of a reliable result is not worth while. That seems to me to be the answer to the two main points which have formed the subject matter of our consideration tonight. In the course of the Debate, I am afraid that we have strayed a little from those two points.
  I want to deal with one or two points that here emerged in the course of the Debate. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities took refuge, if I may say so, in saying that since Mr. Speaker's Ruling precluded him from saying what he would like to have done through legislation, he would not commit himself to a full statement of what he would suggest. Well, he was perfectly in Order in doing that, and I am not criticising him for keeping within the bounds of Order, but I rather thought that in his peroration—he will correct me if I am wrong—he indicated quite clearly that he was not in favour of any form of legislative separation. That being so, what did his argument really come to? It was not an argument against devolution, and I hope my hon. Friends will appreciate it. It was an argument against the nationalised industries. I therefore trust that none of my hon. Friends will be led up the garden path, or even into the Division Lobby behind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  The argument of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was that the increased pressure of centralised government created a condition in which some form of devolution was required, but the gravamen of his charge was that we had too much nationalisation of industry. I am quite sure that his solution is, not any
  2160
  form of devolution but less nationalisation. I trust I am not doing him any injustice when I make that statement. At least we ought to know where we stand, and I think that is where he stands—that the question is whether we should or should not have nationalisation. In my opinion devolution is merely being used as a smokescreen by the Conservative Party in Scotland in order to make an attack against the nationalised industries.
  Perhaps this would not be the proper time and place to debate the nationalised industries in Scotland now, but I think it will suffice if I make one or two observations. As a result of the nationalisation of basic industries in Scotland, and as a result of the much-maligned planning, part of which is wrapped up in the Town and Country Planning Act which received such criticism from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, there is in Scottish industry today an upsurge which we have never had in the lifetime of anyone in this House tonight. As has been said—and I will not repeat it, but will merely make reference to it—it was the economic distress during the period when, apart from the Post Office, we had no nationalised industries in Scotland which gave rise to this clamant demand for some form of Scottish devolution in the hope that some solution would be found therein, because no solution could be found under the system then being operated throughout the whole of Britain at that time.
  It is said that as a result of nationalisation we created a problem, and the railways have been mentioned in that connection. It is rather interesting to recollect that in the early 'twenties the then Minister of Transport, Sir Eric Geddes, proposed to have separate railways for Scotland and England, to have a lateral system of railways instead of a longitudinal system. There was a congregation of opinion from every interest in Scotland—industry, commerce, banking, and the trade unions on the workers' side—so that a large body of representative opinion sent strong pressure down to the Minister of Transport saying "This will never do; this will be the end of economic life in Scotland. You have got to have a longtitudinal service stretching up between Scotland and England." Eventually that pressure was brought to bear successfully, and the railway lines were established as we know them today.

  2161
  Now, there was a definite body of opinion in Scotland, from responsible and representative people, decrying any form of separation for the railways in Scotland. We have, in point of fact, more self-government in regard to the railways in Scotland today than under private enterprise.
  The next point with which I wish to deal is the most extraordinary statement made by the hon. Member for Dumfries that Scotland was more independent in 1914 than today. I am quite sure that he did not think about that statement before he made it. We had no Secretary of State for Scotland in 1914. We had a Secretary, but not a Secretary of State, and he did not sit in the Cabinet. We had only one Under-Secretary, whereas we now have two. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to say something?
  Mr. James Stuart: I said it was done by us.
  The Lord Advocate: I am not suggesting that it was not. I am dealing with the statement made by the hon. Member for Dumfries that there was more independence in 1914 than today, which is just nonsense. In 1939, after the movement which had started several years before, St. Andrew's House was created in Edinburgh. There was nothing of that nature in 1914, all the Scottish Departments being centralised in London.
  Then there are the changes effected by the White Paper. We ought not to minimise the importance of another aspect of the White Paper, which was mentioned only in passing by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), who did so with not too much grace, and that is the Economic Conference, which will have tremendous influence in Scottish industrial life and has shown very effective signs of being a successful organisation. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, we had the consent of all parties when we introduced the White Paper. We said that we would keep our eyes open to see whether other changes were necessary or desirable. The White Paper was introduced after the industries that have been nationalised had been taken over, or were in the course of being taken over. Accordingly, there
  2162
  was no doubt in the minds of the people who were parties to that agreement as to what would be the position under the White Paper.
  Has any evidence been adduced from any quarter tonight to show that there has been a sufficient change or circumstances since the introduction of the White Paper to merit it being scrapped and something else being put in its place? One of the objections put forward is that we have not been able to discuss the cuts in Scotland. The fact is that my right hon. Friend has announced the cuts in Scotland.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Without any details.
  The Lord Advocate: I do not know whether the hon. Member wants cuts or information.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Information.
  The Lord Advocate: It is open to the hon. Member, and to any other Member, to take advantage of the Adjournment to raise any question he wants—after all, we have been discussing this matter for four hours on the Adjournment. If Members really want information, there is Parliamentary procedure by which they can get the information, either in the form of Questions or by raising the matter on the Adjournment.
  I want to point out that we have added time for the Estimates. We have now eight days, six in the Scottish Grand Committee and two on the Floor of the House. During the discussion of the Estimates we have the same right in the Scottish Grand Committee and the same right on the Floor of the House as in any other Estimates Debate. There is no use in saying that we cannot do this, that or the other thing; that we cannot put down a Motion of censure; or that we cannot disclose our displeasure in any effective way against a Minister. The same rules apply in relation to our Estimates Debates as operate in the case of any other Estimates Debates. Accordingly, no injustice is being suffered. We have now eight days against a previous two, and moreover we have put through more legislation in the Scottish Grand Committee, in volume, width and range of subject than in the course of our history.
  Mr. Scollan: And in quality.
  The Lord Advocate: And as my hon. Friend says, in quality, because we have put through some very good legislation.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: And some very bad, too.
  The Lord Advocate: My recollection is that during the last two years hon. Gentlemen opposite have not divided on any purely Scottish Measure. If we have been putting through bad legislation it has been acquiesced in by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that we have had no Divisions in the Scottish Grand Committee?
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows quite well what I was talking about—the general principles of Bills. Of course, we have had Divisions. We have had them from our own side, let alone from hon. Gentlemen opposite. There have been eight days on the Estimates. These extra six days on Estimates in the Scottish Grand Committee have resulted in hon. Members exhausting all that there was to speak about. Those who were present at the last of the Debates in the Committee will recollect that there was a great deal of difficulty in keeping the Debate going. We have exhausted—
  Mr. Willis: The Opposition had exhausted themselves; we had not.
  The Lord Advocate: That may be so. In fairness I might say that the Committee were so satisfied with the state of things that discussion had more or less dropped out of the arena of politics. After the experience of that last day in the Committee, it is doubtful whether anyone will come forward to suggest that we need more days for the discussion of the Estimates.
  2164
  It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that the Scottish Grand Committee should sit in Edinburgh. I do not intend to answer that, because I rather feel that that might involve legislation, and I would be out of Order in dealing with it. I will say this at the risk of incurring the displeasure of the Chair, that this was tried out in an unofficial manner by Mr. Tom Johnston when he was Secretary of State, and it was a complete flop. It was more difficult to get Scottish Members to come to Edinburgh than apparently it is to get them to come to London. There is no doubt that it would suit my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) and myself to have the meetings in Edinburgh, but I must not develop that further. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) said that as a result of party discipline we were able to do certain things. Listening to his speech and some of those made by other hon. Members, it was rather difficult to know where party discipline started, and where it ended.
  To sum up, my submission is that no case has been made for any advance on the White Paper proposals; that there has been no intervening change to justify any advance, but we will keep our eyes open and if any advance is justified we are willing to go along that line towards meeting legitimate demands. No case has been made for a public inquiry and no answer has been given to the point that the time is not propitious or opportune for it. In those circumstances I do not think the suggestion was justified.
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY
  U.S.A. Representative (Visit)
  U.S.A. Representative (Visit)
  Prize Money
  Prize Money
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (SOUTHERN RHODESIA)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (SOUTHERN RHODESIA)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (COMPENSATION)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (COMPENSATION)
  TELEPHONE APPLICATIONS
  TELEPHONE APPLICATIONS
  SYRIA (COLONEL STIRLING, ASSAULT)
  SYRIA (COLONEL STIRLING, ASSAULT)
  BRITISH SHIPPING, CHINA
  BRITISH SHIPPING, CHINA
  BRITISH GUIANA (ATKINSON AIRFIELD)
  BRITISH GUIANA (ATKINSON AIRFIELD)
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Development Schemes (American Scientists)
  Development Schemes (American Scientists)
  Officials (Land Purchases)
  Officials (Land Purchases)
  Makerere College
  Makerere College
  Local Staff (Housing)
  Local Staff (Housing)
  Seamen's Hostels
  Seamen's Hostels
  NORTH BORNEO (HEMP INDUSTRY)
  NORTH BORNEO (HEMP INDUSTRY)
  HONG KONG (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL)
  HONG KONG (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL)
  WEST AFRICA (ANTI-LEPROSY MEASURES)
  WEST AFRICA (ANTI-LEPROSY MEASURES)
  GOLD COAST (PUBLIC COLLECTIONS)
  GOLD COAST (PUBLIC COLLECTIONS)
NIGERIA
  Birth Control Advice
  Birth Control Advice
  Clerical Workers (Trade Dispute)
  Clerical Workers (Trade Dispute)
  MALAYAN POLICE (MISSION)
  MALAYAN POLICE (MISSION)
ARMED FORCES
  Lord Mayor's Procession (Soldiers' Overcoats)
  Lord Mayor's Procession (Soldiers' Overcoats)
  Research Work
  Research Work
  Strength and Expenditure
  Strength and Expenditure
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Sweet Ration
  Sweet Ration
  Tinned Food
  Tinned Food
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Nationalised Industries (Reports and Accounts)
  Nationalised Industries (Reports and Accounts)
  Legacies (Transfer Abroad)
  Legacies (Transfer Abroad)
  SEAFORTH HIGHLANDERS (CASUALTIES, MALAYA)
  SEAFORTH HIGHLANDERS (CASUALTIES, MALAYA)
  MOULDING SANDS
  MOULDING SANDS
  SCOTLAND (CRIMES AND OFFENCES)
  SCOTLAND (CRIMES AND OFFENCES)
  TUBERCULOSIS
  TUBERCULOSIS
  FARMERS, CAMBRIDGESHIRE (ROAD CHARGES)
  FARMERS, CAMBRIDGESHIRE (ROAD CHARGES)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Lyveden—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY
William Louis, Lord Bishop of Salisbury—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK
Bertram Fitzgerald, Lord Bishop of Southwark—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

THE LATE VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN
2.46 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, before we proceed to the Business of the day I am sure that it will be your Lordships' wish that we should pay tribute to a distinguished member of your Lordships' House, Viscount Runciman, who has lately died, and who, long before he came to this House, was known to many of us as Walter Runciman. When I myself came into Parliament in 1910 he was already a member of the great Liberal Government of that period. He held many offices. When I first knew him I think he was President of the Board of Education. There are some noble Lords sitting opposite me to-day who worked with him, and they knew him far better than I did. But as year succeeded year his service became more recognised in the nation generally, and especially in Parliament. I recall my first impression of him when I was a private Member, and I remember being struck then by the singular clarity and force of his expression.
He was a man of very great distinction in public service. He held many offices, and it is fair to say that he received, gained and held the deep respect of all the servants of the Departments over which he presided. He was a great Minister, and later, towards the end of
708
his political career, as we all remember, he did his best to contribute to a solution of the Czechoslovak difficulties—difficulties which Hitler intended should never be solved. He later held office as Lord President in your Lordships' House. In Government administration and business he was one of those highly distinguished public servants respected by everybody and of clear rectitude, like many others whom we are proud to say our race has produced. In Lady Runciman, his wife, he had a friend, a companion and a loyal helper, who has the respect and admiration of all who know her. I am sure your Lordships will gladly join in a tribute to this great public servant who has passed from us, and in an expression of sympathy with his family.
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Salisbury has asked me to say a few words on this occasion, following upon what has been so aptly expressed by the Leader of the House. I do so as one who has long enjoyed personal friendship with Walter Runciman and who was his colleague in several Ministries, beginning at a time before the First World War. He attained ministerial office when very young, first as an Under-Secretary in the Campbell-Bannerman Administration—to which the noble Viscount the leader of the House has just referred—which was formed in December, 1905, and swept the country in January, 1906. Of the strength of the personnel in that Administration there is no dispute. Apart from Campbell-Bannerman himself—and his qualities are not, I think, always adequately recognised—there were Asquith, Grey, Haldane, Lloyd-George, John Morley, Crewe and Loreburn, to name no others. It may be of interest to some of the younger members of the House if I remind your Lordships that outside the Cabinet there was a list of Under-Secretaries which included the names, along with that of Runciman, of McKenna, Samuel and Churchill. That was his beginning.
On these recurring occasions when we commemorate briefly the passing of a distinguished member of this House, we do not seek to use the language of indiscriminate eulogy, but rather try to pick out certain characteristics of the man which make him worthy of remembrance. I think the Leader of the House has done so very aptly. What then should be said

709
of Runciman? He brought to the work of a political Minister some qualities of a very high order. He had deep and sincere convictions, and his strong sense of loyalty to colleagues was untinged with intrigue. He had a businesslike mind, with an unusual command, at once practical and theoretic, of the problems of trade. He had remarkable powers of clear parliamentary exposition, a perfectly-controlled temper and the highest conception of public duty. I think all who had dealings with him during his long years at the Board of Trade will acknowledge his fine equipment for that office, and I am sure that, as the Leader of the House has just indicated, those who served under him there, or in other Cabinet posts, will remember with gratitude his excellence as a Departmental chief. Certainly, to an inner circle of intimates, he was a most charming companion. He was a host who made you feel really at home, whether on his rocky island in the Inner Hebrides, beside his English fireside, or on his yacht where he, the holder of a master mariner's certificate, rejoiced that his friends should share in his pleasure in the salt, salt sea.
One other thing should he mentioned. While he was a man of the highest principle, his own strict rules of personal conduct never dimmed his genial and tolerant outlook. I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, mentioned his last public effort, for, at the end of his public career, he undertook, with the purest public spirit, a most difficut and thankless mission which did not divert the events that darkened his closing years. After this long span of public work, Lord Runciman has for some time past been laid aside in the complete seclusion of incurable illness, devotedly tended by the wife to whom we now offer our respectful sympathy. Time's winged chariot has hurried clattering on, and present anxieties tend to blunt past memories, while he has been lying in retreat in his native Northumberland. But we do right to pause for a few minutes, before entering upon the programme of the day, to remember a man who gave so much of his heart and mind to the honourable service of the State.
2.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches desire to associate themselves with the tributes that have
710
been paid to the memory of Lord Runciman. For myself, I was closely associated with Walter Runciman for more than twenty-five years, from the days to which noble Lords have just referred when he and I were appointed Under-Secretaries in the Campbell-Bannerman Government on its formation. Indeed, he and I, with Mr. Winston Churchill, have for some time been the only survivors of those who held such offices in that Government.
Walter Runciman was a man of great abilities and untiring energy, and those qualities enabled him to render great service to the State in high office in several Administrations for many years. He was not an agriculturist yet his administrative capacity enabled him to be one of the best Ministers of Agriculture of our time. But it was in industry and commerce, a sphere of deep importance to the community, that, year after year and decade after decade, his best work was done. He came to your Lordships' House in 1937, but soon afterwards his health deteriorated, undermined by the labours, the tribulations and the disappointments of that mission to Czechoslovakia which made his name familiar all over the world. Now, after long illness, he has passed away. To Lady Runciman, who so actively participated in all the events of his distinguished career, and to the members of their family, we offer our sincere sympathies.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
3.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the British North America Act, 1867, as respects the amending of the Constitution of Canada; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Bill lead la; and to be printed.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to the constitution and functions of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, the British European Airways Corporation and the British South American Airways Corporation; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

DRINK, TOBACCO AND ENTERTAINMENT EXPENDITURE
LORD SEMPILL: 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, with reference to the statement made by the Lord President of the Council that of the national income last year £8,000,000,000 were spent on personal consumption, of which not far short of one quarter went on alcoholic drinks, tobacco, cinemas and other private amusements, what were the comparable figures in 1938.]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, of the total expenditure on personal consumption in 1938, 12.2 per cent. was spent on alcoholic drinks, tobacco and entertainments, as compared with 21.4 per cent. in 1948. The detailed figures will be found on pages 26 and 27 of the National Income White Paper presented to Parliament last April (Cmd. 7649).
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I beg Ito thank the noble Lord for his answer.

MAXIMUM PRICE OF MEALS
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands on the Order Paper in my name.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what are the conditions which would be prerequisite for the revocation of the order controlling the maximum price
712
of meals in hotels and catering establishments and when it is anticipated that these conditions will be realised.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, these regulations can be revoked when my right honourable friend the Minister of Food is satisfied that in the absence of price control an excessive proportion of un-rationed food will not be diverted to catering establishments.
EARL HOWE: Could the noble Earl answer the last point of my Question?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I think I have answered it. The noble Earl is asking about the time when these regulations can be revoked, and he will see from my reply that the time is, "When my right honourable friend is satisfied."
EARL HOWE: My Lords, does the noble Earl expect that to be realised before the Election, or after?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If the noble Earl can tell me the date of the Election, perhaps I can give him some more information.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Fifth Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1 —ACCOMMODATION—HOUSE OF LORDS.
The Committee appointed a Sub-Committee to consist of the Lord Great Chamberlain or his deputy, the Leaders of the three parties in the House or deputies appointed by them, the Chairman of Committees and the Lord Badeley, with the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to consider matters dealing with the cleaning, renovation and seating in the Lords' Chamber after its vacation by the House of Commons.
2.—MEMORIAL TO THE LATE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY.
A Report from the Sub-Committee appointed to consider matters relating to a memorial to the late Marquess of Salisbury was laid before the Committee and agreed to.
3.—SUPERANNUATION.
The Committee sanctioned the adoption of the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1949, for the staff of the House of Lords.
4.—CLERICAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE LORDS OF APPEAL.
The Committee agreed to the appointment of additional staff in the Parliament Office for the purpose of assisting the nine Lords of Appeal.
5.— DOORKEEPERS AND HOUSE MESSENGERS.
The Committee approved revised scales of salary for the Doorkeepers and House Messengers
6.—RETIREMENT OF PORTER.
The Committee sanctioned payment of a gratuity under section 39 (2) of the Superannuation Act, 1949, to Thomas John O'Brien, an unestablished porter, on his retirement as from 17th September, 1949.
7.—ESTIM ATES.
The Estimates for the House of Lords for 1950–51 were laid before the Committee by the Clerk of the Parliaments and approved.
8.—JOINT WAR MEMORIAL COMMITTEE AND HOUSE OF 'LORDS WAR MEMORIAL COMMITTEE.
The Lord Badeley was appointed a member of the Sub-Committee on the House of Lords War Memorial and of the Joint War Memorial Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I do not think there is anything in this Report to which I need draw the special attention of your Lordships. I beg to move that the Fifth Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords Offices which is in your Lordships' hands, be now considered and agreed to.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
3.4 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN rose to call attention to the administration of the Town and Country Planning Act; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not suppose that any of your Lordships will take exception to the House spending an afternoon seeing how the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act are working out in practice. I am reminded that the Financial Times of March 31 last described this measure in the following terms:
"It is al Act which has descended on a bewildered public and left it gasping at the financial losses it imposes on ordinary private owners and industrial concerns alike, and gasping also at the delays and vexations it sets in the path of all who, four years after the end of the war, still wish to start building."
714
I would sum up the difficulties of the Act as having too cumbersome a machinery, as causing injustice in its compensation provisions, as taking away any inducement to owners to develop, and as setting up this completely centralised monopoly, charging 100 per cent. on all development values, which is completely unfettered in its decisions and whose decisions are subject to no appeal.
I will take first the question of the cumbersome working of the administration of the Act. Many instances could be cited, but I wish to take only one; it is, however, in a sphere which is vital to our very existence—namely, that of proper industrial progress and development. As your Lordships who are familiar with' the Act will remember, under subsection (4) of Section 14, planning permission for the erection of an industrial building having an aggregate floor space extending to 5,000 square feet cannot be obtained without a certificate From the Board of Trade. This provision was designed to secure a proper distribution of industry. I would instance the experience of an industrial undertaking who in February of this year wished to erect a new factory of some 40,000 square feet floor space, with permission to increase that later to 80,000 square feet. A site haft been found in the north of London five miles from Marble Arch, outside the London County Council area and somewhere in Middlesex. Before starting the prospective development, this industrial firm had to ensure that planning permission would be granted and that the purchase price of the site was reasonable, bearing in mind their liability to development charge.
Of course, the purchase price would be affected by the area of the land upon which the buildings would be erected, by the use that would be permitted and the
amount of the development charge. The first two amounts could not be ascertained until planning Permission had been granted, and the amount of development charge must remain unknown until the preliminary plans and estimates had been prepared.
The firm applied to the Board of Trade on February 17 for an industrial development certificate. They did not receive that certificate until June 21. That was a delay in the Board of Trade itself of some four months. Having obtained the certificate, the firm went to see the

715
borough town planning officer, but he could not say definitely whether or not any industrial building would be allowed, and he could give no indication at all of the building lines that would be permitted. Next day the firm's representatives went to the county council engineer, who could give no more information, because, as he said, the building lines were decided by the Ministry of Transport, who had not yet determined them. However, the firm sent in their official application, and in August an acknowledgment was received from the borough council stating that if no decision had been communicated to the firm by October 23 the application could be considered as refused.
That period from February to August (nearly seven months) having gone, even then the firm could not have worked out their quantities or their building plans, which cannot be prepared until permission is given to start the work. Further, they would not have had the development value ascertained, so that obviously it could not have been paid; and the building licence still remained to be procured. These people waited, but by October 23 they had still heard nothing from the borough planning officer. They had waited all this time and, to use a short, simple expression, they became "fed up" and decided not to go on with the scheme. Since the building of the factory had been approved by the Board of Trade, it must have been considered necessary. Surely, that is not the way to encourage proper industrial development at a time when we ought to he doing everything we can to push ahead with it. I earnestly hope that steps will be taken to convince those responsible that these are pressing matters and ought not to be left lying about in the "pending" file. If that is not done, this Act will have a worse name than it deserves.
The next point with which I want to deal is the injustice of the compensation provisions. We discussed this matter when the Bill was before the House, and I do not desire to take up much time on it to-day. No global sum ought to have been fixed. The Act should have provided that all properly admitted claims would be paid in full; anything short of that becomes confiscation. And that is one of the reasons why this Act is so unpopular in the country. The Labour
716
Party can say that they have put aside £300,000,000. But if that means paying only a shilling in the pound, or something of that nature, to a number of the claimants, that is no very great compensation, as a number of creditors in bankruptcy proceedings have found from time to time.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: When the noble Lord suggests that only one shilling in the pound will be paid, has he any data on which to make that suggestion?
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was coining to that. I would merely ask to-day how much is the amount of the total claims so far submitted. I know that by July 935,000 claims had been made; that was apparent from Circular 21 of the Central Land Board. I would like to know from the Minister how many claims have been made since. I would also ask whether the attitude of the Central Land Board in trying to discourage sales of land inclusive of a future claim on the £300,000,000 is not in reality prompted by the fact that they thus hope to get rid of a number of what will obviously be hardship claims. I hope the noble Lord appreciates the point I am making. If a man has bought a small plot of land and paid more than the present user value for it, taking into account that thereafter he will have a claim on the £300,000,000, the Central Land Board may think he will not be so easy a person to brush off on the ground of "no hardship" as a bigger land owner would be. I believe that if the admitted claims came to, say, £600,000,000 as against the £300,000,000 allotted to meet them, any Government other than a Socialist Government would say that henceforth any owner who had not been paid in full would get 50 per cent. of the development value, and the Central Land Board would get only the other 50 per cent. That would be dealing fairly with the owners of land, and at the same time would be giving them some inducement to develop their land.
This brings me to my next point, which is the lack of inducement to owners to dispose of their land at all. There is no incentive whatever to sell a piece of undeveloped land. You can get only its present user value for it, and you can probably make more by continuing land in its present use than by selling it for

717
the user value. That has been quite obvious since the Government decided—certainly contrary to my expectations—to take the full 100 per cent. value of the development charge. Since that was done, any incentive or inducement to the owner to sell a plot of land has gone completely by the board. It has also discouraged many would-be developers from continuing with projects they had in mind. To take a small example, your Lordships may have seen in the Sunday newspapers the Sunday before last that in a small tow n a man wanted to start a sub-station for a post office in the front room of his house, to give extra postal facilities to neighbours who would otherwise have to walk to the other post office some distance away. It is true that he was not charged very much, but he was told that he had to pay £20 development charge. Nothing was going to be done to the house. It would remain the same except that the front room, instead of being unused except on Sundays, would be used for the sale to people from the village of postage stamps, postal orders and things of that sort. The man was very annoyed at this idea of paying £20 and abandoned the project, and now the people will have Ito walk the further distance for their postal facilities.
I heard of three cases from Southampton, all of which concerned small building plots. One plot was bought in 1938 for £150, a figure which really included the development value. On that there is now a development charge of £290. On another plot, bought in 1941 for £160, there is a development charge of £210, and on the third, bought for £225 in May, 198—which was before the appropriate date of the Act—the development charge is £375. Therefore, before any of the people who bought these plots to build their houses can even start building, the first has to pay £440 for his building site, the second £375, and the third £500. It may he said that these are people who will receive a refund from the £300,000,000. But that is a dim and distant prospect, and these people of small means have to raise these sums now, before they can get permission to build the houses for which they bought the sites with that laudable ambition in mind.
Then there is the case of Mr. V. M. Crook, a chemist and sub-postmaster at Parkgate, Liverpool. For his customers'
718
convenience, he was anxious to move next door to rather bigger premises. The Central Land Board asked for £100 for the change of user of that premises into a post office. Mr. Crook took the matter up with the General Post Office, who told the Central Land Board that, in the interests of the public service, it was considered imperative that the post office should be transferred to more suitable accommodation, and they asked that the £100 charge should be waived. The Central Land Board said that there were no provisions whereby it could be waived, and, so far as I know, the post office is continuing in the same small accommodation next door. The imposition of this extra charge on people who want to build their own houses may suggest that some persons do not like a man to build and own his house.
A similar state of affairs exists also in regard to local authority schemes. A local authority which I know quite well in Beaminster, Dorset, are building houses at Great Nosterton, and the cost of the land for those houses was £110. That, they thought, was the total cost. Not a bit of it! The Central Land Board came along and asked in addition a development charge of £50. At Solway Ash, in the same rural district area, a piece of land sufficient for eight houses and which was bought for £125, now is subject to a development charge of £75 which is levied against the rural district council. This is for houses which one Department of the Government, the Ministry of Health, are subsidising in order to keep the rents down, while this other Department of the Government, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, are exacting these charges through the Central Land Board, in order, I suppose to put the rents up. It is a mad sort of world in which we are living when that kind of thing takes place. Of course, there must in both Departments be accounting officers and people handling all the tiles. That is probably the reason for such a large number of additional civil servants at the present time—sonie taking off charges and, at the same time, others putting them on. If we are to be frank about this Act, we must admit that the whole thing has become much more an instrument of taxation than an instrument of planning.

719
A number of complications are arising. If a man dies who has put in a claim on the £300,000,000, his estate cannot be wound up because the Inland Revenue—the death duty authorities—say to the executors, "There may be something coming to this man out of the £300,000,000. You cannot wind up the estate until we see what it is and aggregate it with the rest to ascertain whether or not a higher duty will have to be paid." Therefore, because this £300,000,000 is not payable for several years, there is an enforced holding-up of the executors of any man who has submitted a claim against this fund, and the estates cannot be wound up until His Majesty's Government are graciously pleased to assess the claim and pay the people out of this £300,000,000.
There is another matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the House and which I think is extremely bad for the reputation of that very reputable body of people, the district valuers. They have been held in great repute in the past, and I think they are doing their best to work this Act. What happens—and somebody must have told them to do it—is that they begin in almost every case by assessing an unduly high value, so that they may have sonic elbow room for bargaining with the man before the development charge is finally settled. I know of three cases in the Reading area. Originally, the development charge asked was £2,300, which was reduced after very little bargaining to £1,600. On another £300 was asked, and they settled that for nil. On yet another £875 was asked, and they settled that for £300. As noble Lords know, that kind of thing is going on all over the country, and I believe it is had for the reputation of this highly respected body of men that they should put on a figure which they do not expect to get and reduce it when they are pressed.
In that connection, let us realise that the man who can afford to employ the right kind of solicitor or estate agent to do the bargaining for him—a solicitor or estate agent who understands, or, at any rate, partially understands this Act, which I should think is about the most that can be said of anybody—benefits. By employing such a person who partially understands this Act to plead his case,
720
the man who can afford it may well have some success in getting these high figures reduced; whereas the man who cannot afford it or does not know to whom to go probably has to pay that high figure.
It is appalling to find how dictatorial and how lacking in the ordinary courtesies people in official positions are inclined to become. I had a letter to-day from a gentleman whom I have never met, but who seems to have a genuine cause for complaint. The gentleman is Dr. Oxley of 135, East India Dock Road, Poplar. With your Lordships' permission I will read his letter. He says:
"As your Lordship is calling attention to the Town and Country Planning Acts, you will be interested to hear of individual cases. The first I heard of the 'acquisition' of my house made under those Acts was the notice I received on Friday last from the Chief Land Registrar, saying that the L.C.C. had made a declaration on the 26th August vesting the property in themselves. This is the first I have heard of the purported acquisition. I now know that as long ago as May the L.C.C. had put a scheme before the Minister. They have, however, served me with no notice whatsoever and I am advised that, notwithstanding the provision in paragraph 3 (3) of the Sixth Schedule of the 1944 Act, the fact that I have had no notice can probably not be challenged if, if as is not unlikely, they have given a certificate as mentioned in paragraph 3 (4) and that the falsity of the certificate makes no difference.
I should perhaps add that I am a general medical practitioner, who has been practising in Poplar for fifty years and at this address (the 'acquired' property) for the last seventeen years. It is fortunate for me that I am retiring at the end of this year, but, apparently there is no guarantee that my house will not be pulled down about my ears before then."
Surely, my Lords, the Minister when preparing this scheme, or the London County Council, can let a man know before the whole thing is settled in this manner. I think this is a rather highhanded way for these people to act.
I spoke earlier in my speech about the numbers of schemes so far submitted, and I want now briefly to raise one point in this connection. The date for putting in mineral claims has been postponed where the minerals are being worked or are already subject to a lease. But the time has not been extended for minerals which are not yet being worked and are not on lease. It is just as difficult to fill in a claim properly for minerals that are not subject to a lease as for minerals subject to a lease. I would ask the Minis-

721
ter whether the time cannot be extended for claims for minerals which are not under lease. Another matter which is working out unfairly is that minerals on the surrounding estate are now combined in one unit, which, in many cases, means that under the de minimis rule of Section 63 of the Act they may be put outside the area in which the people can claim. I do not think that that was ever intended. The de minims rule dealt with small amounts, but some of these may run into fairly substantial sums.
There is a further matter to which I wish to refer. Your Lordships will remember that when the Bill was before this House we inserted an Amendment providing that there should be no undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to one applicant over another. I believe, however, that discrimination is beginning to creep in. Let me give one instance. Corner premises used as a chemist's shop were wanted by a bank for use as one of their branches. No structural alterations were required, even though the premises were to be put to a different use. The district valuer agreed that the rental value was identical, whether the premises were used for a bank or for ordinary retail purposes. But he claimed a development charge of £6,000, representing two years' purchase of the agreed rental value, on the grounds that a bank had a higher value than a chemist had—in other words, I suppose, that more reliance could be placed on a bank, because there was less likelihood of its defaulting, than on an ordinary retail trader. That, I suggest, is discrimination, and I am sure that the Amendment we passed was not intended to achieve that sort of result. It is true that the district valuer subsequently came down to £1,000, and that the owners paid it. All the arguing and delay was costly to them, and they thought they might as well pay the £1,000 and get their rent. Nevertheless, I think it was wrong; and it is the kind of principle which we do not wish to creep into the administration of this Act.
Another class of case also arose out of an Amendment originally moved in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will remember that we inserted a provision that there should be a 10 per cent. Tolerance—that is to say, if a man increased the size of his house by only 10 per cent. he could do so without paying
722
any development charge. We had considerable discussion on this point in your Lordships' House, but finally the Amendment was accepted by the Government and by another place, and is now part of this Act. But what is happening now? Let me give your Lordships an example. I heard recently of a man who put up a new building. A development charge of £x, if the building was erected, was agreed with the district valuer. But the district valuer said that with this permission to erect, the man automatically obtained the right at some future time to have this 10 per cent. tolerance, and that therefore he was going to charge £x plus 10 per cent. That illustration is absolutely true;
these facts are authenticated. Therefore, the principle of a 10 per cent.
tolerance works far more harshly than if your Lordships had never moved this Amendment providing for it. A man proposes to erect a new building, and he has to pay an extra 10 per cent. because of the prospect that some years hence he may extend the building. This is a matter that I would earnestly ask the noble Lord to look into, because I think that when we were passing that Amendment there was no intention in the minds of anyone in your Lordships' House that it should work in that way.
It only goes to show, I think, that someone has given instructions that the utmost farthing is to be exacted out of the provisions of this Act. The tax-gatherers for the Romans in Palestine at the time of Our Lord could have learnt lessons from the Central Land Board and their myrmidons. Indeed, there is only one distinction between them—that in those earlier days, whatever may be said about those tax-gatherers, there was at any rate an "appeal unto Cæsar." That we do not now have, under the present administration of this measure; the Board can go on demanding, from small men and great men, such sums as they wish. If you want to develop land in this country, there is no one else to whom to go. In the old days, if you could not strike a reasonable bargain with one landlord there were many more to whom you could go and from whom you could buy your land much more cheaply. But now there is this omnibus body, with its umbrella covering the whole land of the country. The Government have said that they are against monopolies. Indeed,

723
during the present Parliament we passed an Act to enable inquiries to be made into private monopolies, should they be necessary. The Government should do a little inquiring into the working of their own monopolies; and this is as bad a one as ever there was.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships has read in the Journal of the Town Planning Institute the views of six experts on town planning in regard to the first year's working of this Act. It was referred to in a leading article in The Times of November 7 last. The article said:
"The general impression given by the review is that the development rights scheme runs the risk of breaking down completely, and the constructive parts of the Acts, which enable local authorities to determine the future and character of their communities, have a chance of succeeding only if planning can be simplified, conducted with imagination, and promoted in such a way as to carry public opinion with it…"
Public opinion is rightly rising against this Act and its administration, it is rising against it because, by taking the full 100 per cent. of development charge, the Board are holding up all voluntary sales of land. Opinion is rising against the Act because it causes far too much delay in the necessary industrial development; because it is imposing increased charges on our industrial undertakings at a time when we must produce cheaply or go under; and because it places unfair and unnecessary burdens on men and women who wanted to build their own houses and had already bought land for the purpose but who now, although they bought it at building site values before the Act was thought of, have to pay a large development charge on top of the purchase price. That being the case to-day I ask the Government whether they are just going to sit back and view this matter with complacency, or whether they are going to do something about it. I beg to move for Papers.
3.45 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I intervene at this stage. Let me make it plain, however, that it is not for the purpose of dealing fully and finally with the many points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that I rise now. I know that it will please
724
your Lordships when I say that those points will be attended to at the end of the debate by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, you will forgive me for a moment. Your Lordships are laughing. This is not at all funny. It is absolutely impossible to deal with specific instances if one had not heard about them before. If I had known about these specific questions beforehand, I would have found out the facts and details about them and tried to deal with them. As it is, I cannot possibly do such a thing.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount anticipated my next sentence. It will not be expected of him or me, or of anyone on behalf of the Government, that such specific cases of which we have no knowledge will be dealt with to-day. I have been to seek the knowledge since the debate opened, and there is no knowledge of the specific cases referred to. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that they will be looked into and attended to. He will not expect the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack or myself to deal with these specific cases to-day.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was merely instancing the position.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I know; quite right. When I first saw this Motion on the Order Paper on July 27, naming November 17 as the date, I wondered why. A number of reasons passed through my mind, but the reason that stayed in my mind was that it was due to the fair-mindedness of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, which those of us who worked with him in another place years ago appreciated then and appreciate now. No doubt, he was anxious that the Ministry—and maybe the Minister in particular—should know before the Parliamentary Recess that things were not as they should be regarding the working of the Town and Country Planning Act. There are certain Members in another place whom I would have suspected of bringing this matter forward on the eve of the Parliamentary Recess in order that the Ministry or the Minister should be disturbed by these comments. But that is the last thing I should consider about the noble Lord.

725
Like the noble Lord, I have been reading The Times. In The Times of October 14 there was a reference to the Conservative Party Conference, at which a resolution was discussed and carried. Perhaps your Lordships have forgotten it, though many of your Lordships were no doubt present when it was discussed in private. However, let me refresh your Lordships' memories. The resolution, which was carried on October 13, was:
"That this Conference urges the Party to include in its election programme a specific pledge to repeal the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and when elected "—
I thought that was a tremendous assumption—
"to introduce an entirely new Bill which, while preserving the good features of the present Act, will be understandable and workable and not injurious to national recovery; and that, in the meanwhile, this Conference urges the Party to inform the electorate of the dangers of the existing Act."
It is not for me to compare the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and this resolution, but I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me when I say that in many ways I think his Motion is much wiser. I felt from his peroration that his course had been influenced a little by this resolution, but until then he did not allow this resolution to influence his calm, fair-minded attitude to the question he has raised.
It is my difficult task to try to review, in a general way, the different points raised. I may not deal with the subject in the same itemised way that Lord Llewellin did, but I noticed he feared—I thought he rather emphasised this fear to-day—that discrimination might have been shown here and there in the assessment of a development charge. As I have said already, it has not been possible for me to make inquiries into the specific cases referred to, but I would point out that a shop, let us say, is in Class I and an office in Class II of the Uses Classes Order, 1948, and planning permission is required for a change from a shop to an office. When valuing this permission for the purpose of a development charge, the valuer has to determine whether the value of the premises for office purposes is greater than that for shop purposes. In some cases, it will be greater and a charge will arise; in other cases, it will be less and no charge will arise.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? The point of my case was that the district valuer had agreed that the rental value was the same for a bank as for a shop, but the extra charge was put on only because the credit of the person running the one was thought to be greater than the credit of the person running the other.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Yes. I was rather surprised and rather disturbed when I heard the noble Lord make that statement. I have no knowledge of that specific case, but it wilt be looked into. But it is notorious that at the present time, in many cases, premises used for office purposes are retching exceedingly high prices. In cases where the value as an office is greater than the value as a shop, the development charge
is the same-whether the office is used by a bank (to take the noble Lord's
point) or an insurance company, or anyone else, and no discrimination whatever is made against banks in such circumstances. That, I think, deals with the point, although the noble Lord did mention that the credit of the bank may be higher than that of the chemist.
Here I turn to the other points he raised. He was good enough to give me notice of some of the cases he has mentioned to-day. That is the reason I can give more or less an official reply to many of them, but not to all. As regards the case quoted by the noble Lord where planning permission was granted to erect a new building and The district valuer, when valuing the permission, had in mind the fact that no development charge will be payable in respect of further planning permission authorising the extension of the building by 10 per cent., it is not easy for me at so short notice (roughly 24 hours), to deal with the specific case. It may be possible to deal with it in this debate, although I am afraid it will not be so. However, I know that the noble and learned Viscount will be glad to deal with it if possible. The noble Lord referred to his possessing some knowledge of this Act. I would certainly credit him with having some knowledge of the Act, and that knowledge will help him to realise that the Act does require the Board to have regard to the value of the land with the benefit of planning permission to erect the building. The right to

727
extend the building by 10 per cent. free of development charge if further planning permission is subsequently obtained is a benefit that flows from the permission to erect the building and therefore should be taken into account in the valuation when assessing the value of the land with the right to erect a building. Whether, in any particular case, the right has any value is a matter of valuation as the noble Lord will agree.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am rather surprised. That shows that there was nothing wrong with my case, and that represents what they are doing. But I would ask the noble Lord to see whether the Minister himself thinks it is right, because I do not. I would like him to get the Minister to look into that point and see whether this procedure is right, and, if he does not think so, to give the necessary direction so that a man has to pay a development charge only for that for which he has planning permission.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I think that is a perfectly reasonable request, to ask the Minister to look into this point and state his views, and to act on those views. There was a further complaint in regard to the effect of the Act on the upkeep of large estates. Again, before the Act a land owner could lease part of his land for development and use the money so gained to improve the agricultural use of the remainder. This complaint, as Lord Llewellin is fully aware, is inherent in the Act. It is quite clear in the Act. I thought, however, that we were dealing to-day with the administration of the Act. However, what he may possibly have overlooked is that the large land owner has a claim against the £300,000,000 in respect of the parts of his land which have development value, and when the payments are made he will receive a lump sum which he can, if he so wishes, devote to improving the agricultural use of the remainder of his land in the same way as he did before the Act was passed. A lump sum payment of this kind will often be more useful to him than the annual sums which he could otherwise have collected by way of higher rent. Moreover, in those cases where the land owner has made improvements in parts of his land which increase the development value without increasing the existing use value,
728
the claim on the £300,000,000 will be increased pro tanto. I can assure your Lordships that this is the type of case which will receive further consideration when the scheme of distribution of the £300,000,000 is being drawn up by the Treasury.
Now with regard to the figures, I have asked for them and I have been given them. The numbers have increased a little since June or July. The figure for the number of claims up to date against the £300,000,000 is now 937,034. As to the amount of money involved in these claims, there is no information
available at the moment. A point was raised by the noble Lord (he did not raise it in the same specific way to-day, but perhaps I had better refer to it in
brief because it may be mentioned by other noble Lords later) regarding excessive charges. Your Lordships will not expect me to go into details.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I interrupt the noble Lord about this number of claims and the amount involved? I appreciate that it is difficult to find out the amount involved, because I understand that a number of claims are being made in blank. But surely, claims have been made which are not in blank. The number of such claims that have been put in and the total amount which is involved in those claims, must be known. Would it not be possible to have that sum?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: That is a different question but quite a relevant one, and I will have inquiries made about it. There are a number of claims where the amount of money involved will be known. Is the question, whether we know the number of such claims and the amount of money involved in them?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. Obviously, the full figures cannot be given, but it would be interesting to the country to know what these are.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The quesion will be looked into and a reply, I expect, forthcoming; but it may not be in this debate. With regard to the question of excessive charges, looking at the experience of the sixteen months since the Act came into operation, I should like to refer to two facts. The first is that in over 50 per

729
cent. of the applications for assessment of development charge it has been found that no charge at all is payable. Secondly, where development charge is payable the amount has been agreed by the developer in over 95 per cent. of the cases. This makes it clear that the system as a whole is working smoothly. Whenever a developer objects to the assessment as such, the case is referred to the headquarters of the Board, where it is carefully reviewed in order to ensure that the charge has been properly assessed in accordance with the regulations approved by your Lordships' House.
Now with regard to the first complaint in the noble Lord's speech, and possibly the complaint which he emphasised most—and I agree with him in emphasising it—namely, that the procedure is rather slow and too cumbersome, your Lordships will know that the initial application for planning permission is, as a matter of convenience, left to the district council. The planning authorities, however, are the county borough councils and county councils. In the early months following the coming into operation of the Act a certain number of complaints reached the Department from developers who thought that planning authorities were requiring too many copies of plans. Authorities are being encouraged where-ever possible to dispense with detailed submission of plans, and it is known that many applications are disposed of in three weeks or a month. This, I feel sure your Lordships will agree, is not unsatisfactory, especially when we remember that other interested local authorities have to be consulted and also the Ministry of Transport, if road proposals or road safety are affected, or the Ministry of Agriculture, if agricultural land is in question and so on. Here may I add that two months is a maximum period within which the planning authority must consult those other bodies or persons whom the proposed development may affect. Two months may seem a long time, but so long as planning remains a local government function it is unavoidable, since time must be given for the elected representatives to consider the matter. If the development affects a trunk road, the maximum period is three months instead of two, to allow for consultation with the Ministry of Transport.
The other point which was raised was rather a technical one. Lord Llewellin
730
put the matter very clearly, and I will try to reply as clearly as I can. With reference to his point about industrial premises, no doubt he has in mind the fact that the developer has to obtain a certificate from the Board of Trade, as well as a planning permission. Given the distribution of industry policy, this is unavoidable. The noble Lord himself indicated that the question of distribution as between different parts of the country is essentially a national one, which must be considered by the central Government; yet the exact siting of industrial premises is a local question which must, subject to overriding national requirements, be left to the local authority.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord concerning claims in respect of minerals I am afraid that I may not be able to satisfy him. May I put the position as seen by the Minister with reference to claims in respect of minerals owned by or leased to a mineral undertaker on the appointed day? The formulation of such claims was complicated by a number of factors including, first, the effects of the three years moratorium; second, the existence of profit royalties and minimum rents under existing leases; and, third, the dividing line between the winning and working of minerals and the processing of minerals. The time limit for making claims for such live minerals was therefore extended from June 30, 1949, to December 31, 1949. The extension has become all the more necessary because a second set of regulations affecting the making of such claims had to be made, and these did not receive Parliamentary approval unlit last month.
As to the noble Lord's specific question concerning what are known as "dormant" minerals, I would say this. These difficulties in formulating claims did not exist in the case of dormant minerals (the noble Lord gave a better interpretation of that word—namely, minerals in which no mineral undertaker had an interest, or the right to acquire an interest) on the appointed day, and so there was no sufficient reason to treat them differently from other claims. An extension of time for claims in respect of dormant minerals would almost inevitably have meant a general extension of time for all claims. For that reason the Minister did not feel that he could go any further than he has gone.

731
I think I have covered fairly well the whole of the points which have been
raised by the noble Lord. Any points which I have left untouched will, as have already indicated, be dealt with at a later stage in the debate. No one would suggest or expect that an Act of this kind would work smoothly in the initial stages. We should all expect that difficulties would be experienced. I should be the last man in the world to suggest that the Act has worked satisfactorily in every instance; from personal experience I know that it has not. At the same time, I do not think that the Minister or the Ministry, or anyone who has responsibility for this Act need be reminded that this is not a time for complacency. But I have seen no indication of complacency at all. I may have noted that certain decisions have been taken which have not always been acceptable to certain people. The conclusion to which I have come is that, while no one could deny that there may be minor imperfections in the administration of planning control, they are not of a serious character and are mostly curable by minor amendments in subordinate legislation which is already under consideration. I have tried to deal as briefly as possible with all matters raised and, as I have suggested, the necessary action to make the Act work as smoothly as possible is receiving constant and daily attention. The late President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, made frequent use of a phrase which perhaps is not inappropriate in this debate, nor to the working of this Town and Country Planning Act. That sentence was:
"If it doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along."
4.6 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am pleased to support this Motion in whatever way possible, and at the risk of being out of order may I express the hope that the present Government, or at all events the next Government, will seriously consider the desirability of modifying development charges or even abolishing them altogether. The national income is £10,600,000,000, and of that sum 40 per cent. is taken away in central and local taxation. On top of that enormous burden, comes development charge, which is a form of tax, whichever way one looks at the matter. Instead of facilitating and encouraging dealing in land
732
it has the opposite effect. I am not a constitutional lawyer but I should have thought that the opening words of Section 69 of the Act were constitutionally objectionable. They provide, in effect, that there shall be paid to the Central Land Board a development charge of such amount (if any) as the Board may determine. I speak subject to correction in your Lordships' House which abounds with juristic giants of every calibre, but I feel that it is remarkable to pass an Act imposing a tax that is indefinite in amount, liable to fluctuation and generally incapable of ascertainment with precision. However that may be, development charges are being levied, and I understand that one of the objects of those charges is to offset the sum of £300,000,000 that we all hope to touch in 1953 or 2053 or 2153 as the case may be.
That leads me to ask for information from the Government as to the manner in
which claims for depreciation of land values are being dealt with by the Central
Land Board. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has already referred to what he calls the de mitdmis section, Section 60 (3) of the Act. It is a section which has given me considerable anxiety. Section 60 (3) provides in substance that no payment for depreciation of land value shall be made in respect of an interest in land in respect of which a claim is made unless:

"(a) the development value of that interest when averaged over the area of the land exceeds the rate of twenty pounds per acre; and

(b) the development value of that interest also exceeds one-tenth of its restricted value."

So much for the Act of Parliament which we all passed and understood!
I will now read from a pamphlet which is well known as S.1 A, and which was published by the Central Land Board in June, 1948. Paragraph 10 of that pamphlet postulates this:
"What unit of land should be taken for the claim?"
Then the answer is given as follows:
"Any unit selected at the claimant's discretion. For instance, he may claim in respect of the whole or part of his land or, if land includes buildings, in respect of a building, a group of buildings, or a part of a building. If he claims in respect of several units, separate claims must be made in respect of each. The Board have power, however, to aggregate

733
separate claims by the same person for the purpose of their decision and will do so in cases where aggregation is in their view proper to arrive at a fair result under the Act."
That power to aggregate claims is not to be found in the Act of Parliament, and
it may have the effect of defeating the claims altogether. How does it work out in practice? Take the case of a person who has a house and ten acres of land, of which the restricted value is £7,000. One tenth of £7,000 is £700. If the owner of that land is unable to prove a loss of development value of more than £700, he can make no claim against the £300,000,000. On the other hand, it may be that he decides that the building and six acres are not likely at any time to be developed, and that the other four acres have potential building value of considerable importance. He puts in a claim in respect of these four acres and proves to the satisfaction of the authorities that the loss of development value is £500. What is the attitude of the Central Land Board? If the Central Land Board aggregate these four acres with the rest of the land, the Board are justified in saying that he has proved a loss of less than £700 and is therefore not entitled to make a claim against the £300,000,000. But if the Central Land Board are prepared to regard the four acres as a separate unit, and not to aggregate them with the rest of the land, then the owner has justified the payment of a claim out of the £300,000,000. I feel that in 1953 or thereabouts a great number of people will have their claims rejected because of this method of aggregation, which is stated, by a paragraph in a pamphlet published after the Act was passed, to be within the power of the Central Land Board.
The last question I wish to ask is one which the Government cannot answer, but I wish them to consider it seriously. I am Scottish myself, and I have a great aversion to spending any money if I can help it—I know that the noble Lord who has spoken for the Government takes exactly the same view. That being so, let me ask him what is the cost of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and Central Land Board to-day, and how it compares with the cost of the Ministry in 1938? Let me go a step further and ask him what is the cost to the local authorities of their duties and functions
734
under this Act and how that cost compares with the similar cost to the local authorities in 1938. I feel that the enormous amount of money which is being spent to-day on expensive offices and staff for this Ministry would be far better employed in building houses—but that is another story. As many of your Lordships wish to ask questions about the administration of this Act, I will end by saying merely that I agree with everything that has beer said by the noble Lord who proposed the Motion.
4.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, I have no right, and I certainly do not intend, to keep your Lordships long in what I have to say, because I frankly admit that I am no expert on this Act. There is a great deal in it that, through incapacity of one sort or another, I am not at all prepared say I fully understand; but I think that if the full truth were told there are not a few people concerned in the administration of the Act of which the same might be said. I was greatly impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in opening the debate. I do not suppose for a moment that he expected, or that it would have been at all reasonable if he had expected, the noble Lord who replied for the Government, or the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, to produce at a moment's notice answers to the particular cases he instanced. I suppose that the purpose he had in view (as indeed would be the object of anyone else who produced specific cases) was to show the broad tendency and lines on which the Act was working, with the object of drawing the attention of those concerned to the flaws and weaknesses in the Act in order that the objectionable features may be removed.
Probably most of us who have not followed this subject closely in detail have not had any great difficulty in understanding and appreciating what was the broad purpose behind the promoting and passage of the Bill. I have always supposed that the broad principle its supporters had in view was to ensure that no individual should reap a benefit of increased value that he had done nothing to create. Those of us in the political world have known for some time that, though it has always been a matter of

735
sharp argument, that broad case has generally been made. I would have supposed that the principle so laid down, although one difficult of enforcement and involving inevitably a certain amount of hardship in individual cases, had on the whole established its victory in the political field, irrespective of Party. Although I appreciate the difficulty of its application in hard cases, I personally would not quarrel with that principle.
If this Act had contented itself with that, half the present complications that are embarrassing the country would have been avoided. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who, as he always does, made a speech that charms your Lordships and wins your sympathy, I cannot help thinking that he is very optimistic when he talks about the operation of the Act being embarrassed merely by minor complications that we can improve as we go along. What most people throught was to be the main object of the Bill could have been secured without great difficulty if it had been confined to the appropriation of development rights on undeveloped land, including agricultural land, and such control as was required and would have been adequate over the further development or the important change of user of developed land could have been secured under existing planning and housing Acts. The attempt to apply the kind of detailed control with which the Act deals and of which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin spoke, to every change in the use of developed land, is bound to act as a profound discouragement to all development. It will inevitably involve injustice to individuals and, from the point of view of the State, will involve it in a great welter of administration which is very burdensome and which, to my mind, is also dangerous at the present time.
What happens? Change is one of the prime laws of life. In any community that is alive—especially in these days of economic readjustment—changes of greater or less importance in the user of land that is already developed must continue all the time. All those changes have to be subject to administrative decision. This appears to me to be the inevitable consequence. Owing to the volume of that work, decisions have to be taken at
736
a comparatively low level of the administrative hierarchy. Therefore, rigid instructions have to be issued and acted upon in order to avoid any appearance or suspicion of improper preference. The result is that in a matter which in itself is of infinite variety and, therefore, requires some elasticity, you tend to get a wooden treatment that ignores the great variety of adjustments that ought to be made.
I would like to quote a personal case. I do not quote it because I think it is a gross case, but it just does not seem to me to add up. Nor do I in quoting it make any reflection on local administrators, who I am sure do their best. Like many other noble Lords, I have had occasion recently to abandon a fairly large house in which my family have been accustomed to live, and I desired to instal myself in a smaller dwelling that I proposed to construct out of a derelict coach house in the stable-yard. While I was unable to get the permit for that work, I lived in the village in a very pleasant workman's cottage that happened to fall vacant. In due course I obtained my permit, and I proposed to convert my derelict coach house into a flat for myself. On that, the valuing authority's representative came to those who advised me and said: "Here is a change of user from a coach house to a dwelling house. The site value will be greater. What about the development charge?" Those who advised me politely said: "Stop talking nonsense." The valuer then said: "What about £150 or £200?" After a friendly exchange of argument, the matter was settled for £20. I do not quarrel with that at all—£20 one way or the other is not the end of the world—but I am concerned with the principle. There was I, living in a cottage which as soon as I had my coach house converted became available for a good British working-class family, in an area where mines, agriculture and industry are crying out for labour and where the Minister of Health is presumably crying out for houses. He ought to push me with both hands to convert my coach house, instead of trying to fine me £150 to £200 to do it. It just does not make sense, and I cannot begin to understand it.
It is clear that the authorities do not know what they ought to charge. Again they cannot be blamed, because nobody

737
else knows. One of the forms that have to be filled in says:
"If you wish to make an offer of the development charge you are prepared to pay, state the amount you offer."
I came across a' case the other day of a proposal to change a house into a shop for the sale of fish and chips. Let me hastily add that this has no connection whatever with the constituency which Mr. Shinwell represents. The district valuer assessed the development value at about £750. That was objected to, and it was reduced to something over £300. That is exactly like the cases quoted by my noble friend. It is pure guesswork: you bandage your eyes, take a pencil and point at a figure. Who is to know what is the principle under which all this is done? It is clear that the administration have no firm canons of judgment, but are feeling their way and trying to probe the tolerance of individuals to see how much they can get away with. All this time the owners, purchasers, would-be developers and everybody else concerned are snowed under with forms that have to be dealt with. Incidentally, I know the Government are trying to reduce this paper work. I have seen some evidence of that, although, so far as I know, it has not proved itself. I would like in passing to tell the Government of one incident that came to my notice when I was in Washington. The then Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral King, was greatly disturbed at the amount of paper work that went on in the United States Navy. He told me that he had issued order after order to reduce its bulk, but these had no effect. His final act, which was effective, was to call in to stores 50 per cent. of the typewriters in the Navy. I commend that to His Majesty's Government.
What is more serious, as my noble friend said, is that there is no appeal whatever from the decision of the district valuers. They are overworked and, as I have tried to show, they have very insecure principles on which to work. In view of the great pressure on the Department, many decisions have to be taken lower down, with less experience, and they are likely to involve hardship and injustice. I feel that the Government could cut free from half these difficulties and reduce the spate of regulations which flood the world if they would add one
738
more, which could he quite short and which I would like to see issued. By that regulation, the operation of the sections which apply to developed or partly
developed land would be postponed until further notice. Meanwhile, the Government would take advice from those who know what the difficulties are and how the thing is in fact working, in order to produce some plan which would be simpler and less hampering. I do not think for a moment that the Government will do that, although it is true that to-day we live in a world of surprising accommodation in many large political matters, and, therefore, perhaps it is not quite hopeless to suggest it. I do say, without fear of being proved in error, that it is only by some such action that we shall avoid a growing paralysis in this side of our national life—a paralysis which, at this moment of all others, we cannot afford.
4.32 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: My Lords, it is plain that there are many deficiencies in the working of the new planning system, especially in connection with the compensation and betterment sections of the Act. Noble Lords who have already spoken have this afternoon effectively put their hands on some of these deficiencies, and they certainly call for inquiry and examination. When the Government make this inquiry and examination, I would ask that certain other points might be looked at as well. I speak from the point of view of those who are particularly concerned with the preservation of the beauty and of what are commonly called the amenities of our countryside, and my remarks are based on my own observations in the part of the country with which I am most familiar—namely, the county of Cornwall. However, I feel sure that what I want to say has a general application.
In Cornwall, where, if I may say so, we have a particularly wise and experienced group of planning officers, the actual work of surveying and planning is being carried out with smoothness and efficiency. Co-operation with the local authorities and the public is being well maintained, and in three years from July I. 1948, the area will have been surveyed, examined and covered with development plans, which will be of great assistance in preserving the natural

739
beauty and amenities of the county. There are, however, two matters to which I should like briefly to call attention. Compared with points dealt with by noble Lords who have spoken hitherto, they are minor matters, but I think they deserve fresh consideration by the Government. The first concerns the preservation of woods and groups of trees. At the moment the position is extraordinary, and cannot be regarded as at all satisfactory. By Circular 66 it is left with the area officer of the Board of Trade to determine where outstanding amenity interests call for consultation between his Department and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. But the primary aim of the area officer of the Board of Trade is, and must be, to secure as much timber as possible for trade. Therefore it is neither fair nor reasonable to make him the judge of whether the beauty or the amenity value of certain trees is so great that he must raise the question of their preservation. The whole matter requires reconsideration.
I understand that in the New Year the Forestry Commission will assume the responsibility of issuing tree-felling licences. When that happens, should not the Forestry Commission in all cases consult the county planning department? In Cornwall, at all events, such consultation would not involve a long delay. These cases could be given high priority by the county planning officer, and could be back in the hands of the Commission within two or three days. In Cornwall the matter is extremely important, because we have far too few trees, and during recent months and years we have been losing those few far too fast. No doubt similar considerations apply elsewhere.
The other point to which I want to refer is connected with camps and caravans. Last June, in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, moved an Amendment with regard to the use of land as a site for movable dwellings. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, pointed out at that time, that particular Amendment was far too wide, and Lord Addington did not press it. But I do not remember any other Amendment being suggested to take its place, and I would ask the Government to consider whether the Act sufficiently covers the
740
matter. The use of sites for caravans and camps should, to some extent and in a suitable manner, be brought under planning control. In future years, camping and the regulation of camping sites will become more and more important. Casual camping, in succession after succession, through the summer months might go far to spoil stretches of some of the finest coast land in England. Moreover, at present not only are there too many loopholes allowing evasion, but there is a considerable overlapping of the functions of the planning authority and of the local authorities. I hope that when the Government make the searching inquiry, which is so much to be desired, into the effects of this Act, they will include in that inquiry the two matters which I have mentioned. No doubt there are a number of other points as well.
In many ways it is very regrettable that we have to live under an increasing load of small regulations, but I am afraid that it is inevitable. Living in this island becomes more and more like living in a ship, and unless there is discipline in details we cannot avoid stepping on one another's toes. I would conclude with a more general appeal to the Government. In this matter of planning, let Government Departments themselves take special care to set a good example. When they acquire an area and develop it by erecting buildings and so on, let them make a point of consulting and co-operating with the planning authorities, just as a private citizen is required to do. A good example attracts willing imitation, and it is important not merely to issue regulations but to persuade and win public opinion.
4.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I fear that I regard this Act as typical of the mass of ill-considered and ill-digested legislation which the Government have seen fit to pass. It comprises —I speak in approximate terms—200 pages. In addition, there have been thirty-three regulations, covering a further 200 pages. There have also been thirty-nine letters to local authorities. We have to remember that rather more than fifty clauses of this Act and six of its Schedules were never even partially discussed in Committee or on the Report stage in another place; they were never even looked at. Is it surprising that cer-

741
tain difficulties in the administration of a piece of legislation such as this have been brought to your Lordships' notice to-night?
As your Lordships are aware, I have some interest in this matter, but I think it right to say that it is a very slight one. I have no personal knowledge of the working of this Act. I am not one of the anxious and expectant queue waiting for a mythical share of the £300,000,000a share which, moreover, if a Government of the same persuasion as the one now in power, and if the treatment which the unhappy gas stockholders have received, is any criterion, will be but a modest and materially diminished proportion of their claim. Having listened to the powerful and comprehensive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, I feel sure that your Lordships will not wish me to do more than touch briefly on some of the reasons why I feel that this Act cannot work.
I would like to say at the outset that with the purpose of this Act I have no quarrel; but I do quarrel with the manner in which His Majesty's Government are seeking to achieve this purpose. They are, in fact, lost in a legislative maze from which there can be no escape, a maze in which myself should be involved if I attempted to take your Lordships through the many sections and Schedules of this Act. If one remembers the multitude of problems that arise, it is difficult to know where to begin. There is one point upon which the noble Marquess the Leader of the noble Lords among whom I sit, touched, and that is the question of the ascertainment of development value and the amount of the claims for the loss of value which have already been lodged. As the noble Marquess knows, a large proportion of these claims are yet in blank. I should like to put this to your Lordships in all seriousness: that it is all but impossible, in the case of built-up areas, to assess these claims. It must be appreciated that each building needs special consideration, and there are many factors to be taken into account: planning, zoning, restrictive covenants, rights to light, and so forth, which make an actual assessment almost an impossibility.
Take a block used as flats. How does one know whether at a later date it may not be possible to use that block for offices or business premises? And if it
742
is possible that it may at a later date be so used, how are we to compute the loss of development value in such a case? Or, supposing that his imaginary block of property is already in an area zoned for development as business or office premises, how are we to know when consent for such development will actually be given, or how many years there will be to wait? If we have no certainty as to time, how is it possible to assess development value? I appreciate that noble Lords opposite may not have much sympathy with a problem of this kind. But it is the district valuer whose time is occupied with these things; and all these elaborate, exacting calculations, speculative to a degree, are bound to impose a yet heavier burden upon people whose hands are, as your Lordships are aware, already over-full.
The purpose of this Act, as I understand it, is to secure that land shall be freely bought and sold at existing use value. But I do not believe that that purpose has been achieved, or that it ever can be achieved under this Act. I cannot conceive that any one of your Lordships who owns a plot of land with a low existing use value and a high development value could be so unwise as to sell it at the lower of hose two figures. If he did he would receive a comparatively trifling sum in money and he left with an utterly uncertain claim on a fund, payable at a comparatively remote date, a claim, moreover, which it will be extremely difficult to agree; and, even if it is agreed, the owner has no guarantee that he will receive the whole, or indeed any precise part, of the sum that might be assessed. It is not likely that in those conditions land be transferred at existing use value. It is true that, under the Act, local authorities are in a privileged position. They can buy at existing use value of course, and they are relieved of the burden of compensation for refusal to develop. Even this has not operated quite in the way in which one might have hoped: there are cases—I could give examples if your Lordships desired it—in which local authorities have made compulsory purchase orders and served notices to treat over the greater part of a small, or even a large, town, and then negotiations for development have been entered into and have proved abortive, with the result that development over a large area is frozen.

743
I should like to turn for a moment to the question of development charge. As your Lordships are aware, this was fixed, in effect, at 100 per cent. From a charge of that nature many unfortunate consequences must flow. It is plain that a charge which absorbs all the added value which may accrue is bound to deter any potential developer; and I would remind your Lordships that as development is controlled, since it is subject to planning permission, it is not wild, rash, unsatisfactory development which is prevented: it is orderly, planned, controlled development which is checked, development of the very kind which one would suppose that His Majesty's Government would be anxious to encourage. It follow s, also, that a penal development charge increases the cost of development—in other words, the cost of building rises. All that can happen then is that the cost of that building must be passed on; and in the last resort it is of course borne by the community. There is another way in which the community suffers under this Act. It was brought to my notice recently that a small firm, a private company, manufacturing woollen goods for export, who were working to capacity, wanted to build an extension to their factory. Immediately they attempted to build they found themselves exposed to the crushing blow of a penal development charge: and this development charge, added to the existing burden of taxation which the shareholders in such a company must bear, made the proposal to enlarge the factory utterly unattractive and unremunerative. It was decided that expansion was inadvisable—a most unfortunate decision considering the export business that might have resulted. In this particular case loss to the export trade is being caused under the Act; in other words, the very trade which His Majesty's Government have declared it their business to foster and encourage is being restricted.
Even if a developer is not deterred by the penal charge, there is much else which may well daunt him. There are many actors in this play; the sanitary officer, the medical officer, the planning officer, the surveyor. And there are consents, permits and licences to be obtained. In such circumstances, he is a bold and courageous person who embarks on
744
development, though I believe that in another place the Minister said that in special cases he would allow some modifications of this charge. I cannot feel that this possibility of negotiation in any way diminishes uncertainty or, indeed, tends to increase respect for the authority of the district valuers. I have tried to relieve your Lordships of the burden of listening to a number of examples.
The case which I shall put before the House is a short one. A district valuer produced figures to substantiate a charge of £9,700. At a second interview the amount was reduced to £4,700. Further figures reduced the charge to £185. The district valuer then said he would accept £150 and, finally, agreed that no charge whatever was necessary in the matter. If we have these difficulties and uncertainties that I have mentioned, it is not surprising that the Act is not successful in its operation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Viscount allow me to have the details? If I can obtain some information, I can check up on these cases.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: Certainly. If the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to digress for one minute, I usually make it a practice, when I know I shall have the privilege of hearing his answer, of giving him a note of what I intend to say. In this case, probably through my own fault, I was unable to ascertain that the noble and learned Viscount was to reply. Therefore, I was unable to observe the rule which I usually adopt. As I was saying, however, with a position such as that, it is not surprising that the Act is unsuccessful in its operation. I believe that one of our younger authors has said that:
"To taste the sweets of life to the full one should live in a state of uncertainty, anxiety and suspense."
In such a case, the potential developer owes a great debt to Mr. Silkin!
I would say to the noble and learned Viscount that in regard to this Act I stand before your Lordships not as an executioner but as a surgeon. The noble and learned Viscount seems to think that my operation will be almost lethal in its nature. At any rate, I hope it will be painless. The noble Earl, to whom your Lordships listened with such interest, suggested that we should appoint an in-

745
dependent committee to inquire into the workings of the Act, and that pending the findings of the committee we should delete those Parts of it which refer to developed and undeveloped land. This could be done, of course, by passing a simple Act in another place. I believe that if this were done we should at least restore in part that orderly development which is essential to our economic life.
4.54 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, your Lordships will agree that this has been a most interesting and valuable debate. Our desire is to examine whether this Act is fulfilling the intention which Parliament had when it passed it into law. If the intention of the Act is to plan our towns and our country properly, to avoid the mistakes of the past, to restrict speculation and to obviate such things as congestion and ribbon development, we can have nothing but praise for it and I believe that was the main intention of Parliament when the Bill was passed. Your Lordships will recollect that this House gave an unopposed Second Reading to the Bill, but on that occasion my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, in agreeing to give an unopposed passage to the Bill, pointed out the dangers that he saw in the development charge. In the course of his speech, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said this about the development charge:
"It looks unexceptionable. The development charge gives the impression of being a charge in aid of development but, in fact, it is a charge in restraint of development. It is a tax, pure and simple. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated on an astute stroke of business, but it has nettling whatever to do with planning and it will not assist development, but it will rather tend to hinder it."
In the light of a little over one year's experience we come to look at the working of the Act, and I feel that every word which was said on that occasion by the noble Marquess is proving to be true. The Part of this Act which deals with development charge is working out as pure taxation; it is not assisting development but rather is tending to slow it up.
I do not propose to range over the whole scone of the Act as it affects private owners, but I shall say a few words particularly about industry. My experience of the effect of the Act on industry relates mainly to one part of the
746
country—the West of Scotland—but I think the same is true of all parts of the country. First, I should like to pay tribute to the officials who are attempting to work the Act. The experience of those I have consulted has been that these officials are attempting to give a liberal interpretation to the Act, and that they have done their best to meet the difficulties with which they have been faced and to ease the strain which has been put on industry and on individuals by this charge. Most of them will admit that they have been given an extremely difficult task, in some cases an almost impossible task. Sometimes, when the element of haggling comes in, it is a distasteful task.
I have lately spent a few years in India, and one of my less pleasant duties as Governor there was to suspend local authorities at times For "hanky-panky" in the collection of their taxes. This nearly always arose because the collection of taxes was based on no exact lines but on how much mild be got from an individual or how much you could settle with him for. Now the collection of this charge is no exact science. The Central Land Board have issued for guidance a booklet called Practice Notes, and it is on these notes that the officials up and down the country are endeavouring to work. But they have been left such a wide latitude that they have the task, which is an extremely difficult and distasteful task, of bargaining and haggling in an almost oriental manner quite alien to normal practice in this country. I regard this feature of administration as so important that it would be wise for us to pay close attention to it. Having said that, I reiterate that I believe these officials have been doing their best to give a courteous hearing and reception to all those who have had to contact them.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships with many examples but I will just touch on one or two cases where it seems to me that the charge acts particularly unfortunately. I know of a steel rolling mill in Scotland which had been operating for some years in a building where it was thought that the roof was too low for the comfort of the workers. A scheme was prepared before the Act was passed, for raising the roof over this steel mill. The floor space was not to be enlarged,

747
the mill itself was not to be altered, and the earning capacity of the mill was not to be increased, but the roof was to be raised. That attracted a considerable charge because it was a big building and the enlargement was over the 10 per cent. tolerance. I do not complain that the charge was wrongly imposed in this case, but I instance the unfortunate working of the Act. The owners were informed that the charge could be avoided only if the scheme was modified and the roof raised by a much smaller amount or left as it was. Surely there is something wrong in that attitude towards beneficient development which brought no more earnings. In another case of which I know, a store was destroyed
by fire, and the owner, in proposing to rebuild, thought he would improve on his store by enlarging it, but again tax was attracted. He was told that if he rebuilt the store exactly the same size as the old one, he would avoid the development charge. I believe he did so, but who was really the loser? Surely the country which prevented the reasonable progress which this industrialist intended.
Let me touch on another example—the case of a brickworks. As your Lordships know, there is a process for making bricks out of what are known in Scotland as "bings" and elsewhere in the country as "spoil heaps." They are heaps of waste material which in the past it has been thought to be beneficial to remove, even at some expense, and I have known of unemployment relief works being started at considerable cost to remove them in order to improve the amenity. The process of using this material and making it into bricks is being increasingly used now. Now in addition to anything that is charged by the owner, these brickmaking firms are being subjected to a new State charge for the use of this material. I have known it to be as much as 7½d. per ton. It takes two or three tons of this waste to make a ton of bricks, so it increases the charge of bricks at a time when it is desirable to keep down house-building costs by every possible means. Is that fulfilling the original intention of the Act? It seems Ito me to be very much against the wishes of His Majesty's Government when they passed the Act.
In the past, planning was not carried out by the State. Sometimes planning
748
was badly done by private individuals, but sometimes it was wisely done with foresight, by industrialists who acquired land adjacent to their works for the specific purpose of enlarging their works and developing their business. I know of land which has been owned for over one hundred years for the definite purpose of the extension of works. Now if since the war a scheme had been started, those buildings which were completed or were started before the 'appointed day in July, 1948, escaped the charge, but all buildings which had not been started will bear the development charge, although they are an integral part of the original scheme the plans of which had been approved as a whole. Again, I do not complain that anything improper has been done by the officials concerned, but one effect of the working of the Act has been to produce this anomaly. I suggest that the Government should consider the setting up of a tribunal to hear claims, and I would hope that if such a tribunal were set up it would be proper for an industrialist to represent that a scheme which was developing on a plan which had already been approved before this Act commenced Ito operate should wholly escape charge in respect of that part of the scheme which had been started after the 'appointed day. That, of course, is only one point that could be considered by such a tribunal; there would be many others.
It has been suggested that perhaps the amount of the charge is not so much to worry about after all. I do not know about that. The charge can be very considerable. As I am speaking of industrial practice, I would remind your Lordships, that steel works buildings, for example, are immense buildings. Some of them have roofs a thousand feet long, and they cover acres of ground. Therefore, industrialists who build on a large scale—and some of them are doing it at the present time—will be called upon to pay a considerable new tax. It should be possible to ease this charge considerably if industrial development is to be encouraged. It is not only the amount of the charge, it is the diversion of effort, the amount of time that is spent in the drawing offices, the technical offices, and the clerical offices of companies, working on the preparation of claims for compensation, on the one side, and on questions relating

749
to the development charge on the other. It is a pity that we should have to divert effort at this time to such an extent when united effort is wanted in industry.
I have made my points briefly. I would add only that I very much hope that the Department which is charged with looking after trade and industry, the Board of Trade, and its Minister, will earnestly look into the working of the Act. We are urged at this time to get every ounce of production that is possible. We shall go to that with a will and with unity, and I hope will get the greatest possible measure of production. At the same time, I am strongly of the opinion that the working of this Act is militating against the development of schemes which would
give us greater production, and I hope that the Board of Trade will he vigilant and active in the defence of industry in this matter. My Lords, other members of your Lordships' House have stressed other aspects of the working of the Act. I have spoken particularly of its effect on industry: I hope that great care will be taken of this, and that the noble and learned Viscount in his reply will be able to say something which will give us hope that this particular aspect will be carefully looked into.
5.6 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I do not propose to quote any more examples of development charges which seem to have disturbed many of your Lordships in their incidence. From the cases stated this afternoon, it is perfectly clear, first, that in this process of determining what the development charge shall he there is in the view of many of your Lordships too much elasticity. That, I think, flows from the principles enunciated by the Central Land Board in their Practice Notes. I would draw your Lordships' attention to those Practice Notes, because they are the instructions issued directly to the district valuers by the Central Land Board. It is clearly stated that the Central Land Board view their own functions as those of a seller; they have something to sell and they propose—no doubt with the sanction of the Treasury—to sell at the highest price.
The result of this, of course, is that the district valuers—and I admire them and the work they do—have a tendency always to start their negotiations many
750
hundreds of pounds above the figure that they will finally accept. That may be all right in dealing with developers who are able to employ highly trained surveyors, and to take legal advice and so on, but it operates hardly and harshly against people of small means who have not the knowledge of how to tackle a district valuer when he comes and says he wants £500 development charge. Many of your Lordships know how to deal with this question, but the average citizen does not, and that is where the shoe pinches. The noble Viscount on the Woolsack 'told us on a former occasion that this was part of the Niggling of the market. It is perfectly proper, so long as it is a fair higgling between two equally balanced parties, but it operates extremely harshly when one of the parties is ignorant of how to defend himself.
The greater part of the debate this afternoon has turned on this question of development charge, which is a new feature in any legislation. It was referred to by my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir, as a feature which should be looked into extremely carefully, because the Practice Notes which are issued for the guidance of valuers are not subject to any criticisms or Resolutions in either
House of Parliament. They are issued by this willing seller as part of his
everyday practice. But there is nobody who can say whether the principles laid down are the right principles, or whether the procedure laid down is such that Parliament should agree with it. That is a material point, and I hope that it will be raised later in a rather different form by my noble friend Lord Gage.
Many of your Lordships will remember the debates that used to take place years ago on the question whether the betterment of land values was a matter that could be dealt with equitably, and whether it should be a charge on sellers of land in cases in which land had been improved by public expenditure. That, as your Lordships know, was the basis of the Uthwatt Report. But to that fairly simple formula, which itself proved difficult to administer, there has been added a completely new conception, a conception of development charge on any change of user. That, I think, is what is disturbing the minds of the public and the minds of the many speakers who have spoken in this debate this afternoon. If we take the

751
case of the corner shop which became a bank, the question naturally arises: What justification has the State for making this charge? No further public money has been spent. At one time, I gather the shop in question was a chemist's shop—at any rate, medical comforts were sold there. Subsequently it became a bank. What justification is there for the State, in such circumstances, to say: "We claim £500"—though in that case it was not £500 but £6.000, a figure which was subsequently reduced to £2,000. I am certain that the public cannot see the justification for such an imposition.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but when this Act was before your Lordships' House in the form of a Bill, we were told that this 100 per cent. development charge would never be charged. We were told that the actual amount would be less. That has now been changed, much to the detriment of the working of this Act; and, as a consequence, there is now reluctance on the part of owners of land to deal in it. Naturally, if the whole of any advantage in selling land is to be withdrawn from the seller, he asks himself: "Why sell?" Certainly that is clear to everyone in the House this afternoon, and I think it is clear to people in general. Some incentive must be left. In many cases the owner of a field who is drawing an agricultural rent has a much better security in his agricultural rent than he has if he sells the field at existing use value and invests the proceeds in any of the investments which are open to him to-day. That being so, there is bound to be a great reluctance on the part of owners of land to part with it.
I conclude by saying this. There has been little comment on the administration of this Act in other respects. Almost all criticism has been concentrated on the development charge. As one who has to carry out the day-to-day administration of this Act, I am rather surprised that that has been so, because the machinery of
the Act is in itself extremely cumbersome. A case was cited by the noble Lord,
Lord Llewellin, illustrating the intolerable delays caused by the crisscrossing of what we call consultation. Before they can issue planning consent or permission to develop, the local planning authority have to consult
752
the Board of Trade, or any other Government Department concerned. Your Lordships no doubt realise that this takes months and months, and often at the end of the time no conclusive answer is received from the Government Department concerned. And what happens in the meantime? Development, good or bad, is held up indefinitely, and a complete feeling of frustration is engendered in the minds of would-be developers. As this country must depend on development for its life-blood, it seems lamentable that there should exist this immense bureaucratic system, leading to what I consider to be intolerable delays in the development effort. I hope that the Government will do their best to simplify, to quicken and to shorten the process which is now employed.
5.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I wish to make only two short comments on the administration of the Town and Country Planning Act. Some hard things have been said about development charge this afternoon. I believe that however justly and however competently the Central Land Board carry out their functions, they will always be accused of arbitrary conduct until such time as the particular principles on which they work are sanctioned by Parliament after proper debate. My submission is that the Central Land Board, armed with an almost unintelligible formula and also with a theory that they have something to sell, are, in fact, making law—law which affects the ordinary person to a considerable degree and which has none of the usual Parliamentary safeguards.
I should like to quote one paragraph of the Practice Notes—paragraph 95. This states that:
"The Board in assessing Consent Value will allow the developer (the person who constructs the road) the proper allowance for his effective (that is producing value in the land) capital investment, including any statutory liability for road or similar charges, together with a reasonable return for profits and risk on his investment."
That is a policy statement of the highest importance. The policy embodied in it is very different from the policy that was announced when we were discussing this measure before it received the Royal Assent, and I consider that it is a considerable improvement on it. But, clearly, a great deal will depend on what

753
the Central Land Board consider to be a reasonable profit and a proper allowance. And still more turns on whether this policy will be allowed to stand or not, because there is nothing to prevent its being altered at any time. I believe that Parliamentary debate on general principles, presented in an orderly way, would do a great deal to clarify the issues that have been brought out this afternoon. I suggest that it would be well if the general principles could be separated from the mass of technicalities with which any matter of valuation tends to become involved. Therefore, I would ask the Government to consider once more setting out in a White Paper or some other statutory document the main principles on which the Central Land Board are to work. That statement could be debated and aproved by Parliament, and it should be binding on the Central Land Board until some other document is substituted for it.
The other matter which I wish to raise has not so far been mentioned. It is a common criticism of any Service Department at any time that they are preparing for the last war. However that may be, judging by recent developments the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and the authorities working under them, might well be accused of planning for the last peace. Before the war, great numbers of private houses were erected, many of them of unsuitable design and in unsuitable places. I agree that the 1947 Act would be an effective instrument for controlling that sort of development, but since the war the problem has been quite different. The size, the price, the materials and the numbers of all private houses put up are strictly regulated by the Ministry of Health and so, though less directly, is the location of these houses, because of the insistence that new council houses shall be built before private houses.
Despite all these restrictions, people continue to be incurable optimists and still think that some day they will be able to build and live in a house in a place of their choice. The result is that they are continually applying for consents, despite the fact that owing to the operation of the quota system they will not be able to build for two or three years. That was true up to a week ago. These people believe that we are living in emergency conditions. Certainly the
754
emergency has not passed; it has become worse than ever. In the latest circular issued by the Ministry of Health, all new private house building will be virtually brought to a conclusion. I wonder whether the Government can give any guidance to the planning authorities in this matter. Are we to go on considering applications which cannot be implemented now, or within two or three years—and perhaps not for five or ten years? Are the Central Land Board being instructed to give a determination in these cases?
Sometime I wonder whether this restriction on private enterprise building is dictated solely by emergency considerations, especially when I read that the Minister of Health has publicly stated that in future we must look forward to a time when the privately-occupied small dwelling will Abe the exception rather than the rule. I sometimes wonder whether 75 per cent of the work which the
planning authorities are doing is not a gigantice waste of time. It may be that the Government are so confident about a Conservative victory at the next Election, that they do not see any necessity to introduce any modifications in planning practices. I hope the Government will not be deterred by that consideration. I hope that we shall be able to come to some agreement between Parties about the modifications which ought to be introduced into this planning procedure. In spite of what my Party has decided, I think that it would be a great mistake, so far as the continuity of policy is concerned, if the basic principles on which the 1947 Act was built up have to be abandoned and we have to start all over again.
5.26 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think it would be generally agreed, as my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir said just now, that we have had a valuable debate. It must have been a formidable debate for the Government, and made, the more formidable by the moderate way in which speakers on this side have stated their case. I had not intended to intervene, and I rise to make only one point. It is in answer to something said by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. At the end of his speech, almost in his last words, the noble Lord gave the impres-

755
sion—I hope I am not misinterpreting him—that we may be worried about the appalling cases that have been quoted today, but they are merely teething troubles. The noble Lord said that the first operation of an Act could not be expected to work very smoothly, but with practice the machinery would get into swing and all would be well. Our contention is that that is not the position at all. We feel that this Act is being operated for the wrong purpose altogether. It is not the Act in itself that is necessarily wrong, but the way in which it is being operated both by the Ministry and by the Central Land Board.
As your Lordships know, the original purpose, and the only original purpose, of this Act was to facilitate the town and country planning of this country. That was the name of the Act and the purpose of the Act. That was why we did not oppose the Second Reading, and indeed, why we gave it a sympathetic reception. After listening to the debate this afternoon, can 'anyone now conclude that that is the primary purpose of this Act? It has become a new method of collecting money for the Exchequer. There is practically no secret about it. It has become an additional indirect tax upon the owners and developers of land.
If the purpose of levying a development charge had been to assist planning, surely, first of all, the Central Land Board ought to be under the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and not under the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I understand they are; and secondly, the charge ought to be varied according to the desirability or otherwise of the development. In a place where development was thought contrary to the public interest, a high development charge might be levied; in a place where development was thought desirable, by either the
Ministry or the local planning authority, the charge would be low in order to facilitate it. But now development charge has been fixed at an all-over rate of 100 per cent. What object could there be in that, except to bring into the Exchequer as much money as possible? I am not surprised at that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly needs money and he will get all he can if that machinery is put under his control. But that is not the purpose of a Town and Country Planning
756
Act. In such circumstances as these, how can good planning possibly be achieved, apart altogether from the individual injustices to British citizens which may be involved?
When the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor intervened at the beginning of the debate, he said he could not possibly answer with regard to individual cases of which he had no notice. We all understand that he could not be expected to answer to-day, but I think my noble friend Lord Llewellin gave those cases, not to get an answer, but as instances of points which he was making in his speech. The Lord Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and
other noble Lords on the opposite Benches must have been impressed by the volume and the nature of the instances that have been quoted this afternoon. The injustices under this Act, as it has been operated, are many and varied. I quite agree with what has been said, that they are not the fault of officials, who are doing their best to make a success of this measure; but they are the fault of the Minister and the Central Land Board, working under the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As one who lives in the countryside, I would assure noble Lords that there, at any rate, they are causing increasing indignation up and down the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, as I understood it, thanked my noble friend, Lord Llewellin, for not disturbing the holiday of the Minister of Town and Country Planning by initiating an earlier debate. I personally feel that the present complacency of the Government over this measure ought to be disturbed; I would even be willing to disturb the Minister's holiday for this purpose. The present state of affairs really cannot go on. It is causing cases of injustice such as have not been known in this country for a very long time. I assure the Government that we on this side of the House believe in town and country planning, if it means real planning. That is why we did not oppose the Bill. But I would repeat that at present this is not a planning Act at all, but is merely a method of extracting taxation, irrespective of its effect on real planning.' Until the Government bring the Act back to its original purpose it will be a blot and not an ornament on the Statute Book.

757
I beg the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor who is to reply, and who I am certain is opposed to these injustices just as much as anybody else, to give us a sympathetic answer this evening, and the promise of a searching inquiry into all the cases that have been raised and similar cases which are known to exist in many parts of the country. I beg him and his colleagues, too, not to close the door to drastic amendment in the administration of this Act if their inquiries show it to be necessary. Let the needs of planning, and not the needs of the Exchequer, be the ultimate criterion in this particular case. That I believe to be a solemn obligation on the Government, not only to us in the
Opposition who supported this measure, but to Parliament and the country. I urge on the Government that it is an obligation of which they cannot divest themselves.
5.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, for a considerable time in the days of the Coalition Government and for a considerable time in the days of this Government I devoted myself to the question of planning; and of all questions to which I have ever devoted myself, I found it the most difficult. At the same time, I found it most important, because there was no doubt at all that the existing planning system had largely broken down. If we want to make this country effective (we have precious little room here) we must plan it as well as we can and take every step towards that end. I am always consoled by the thought that, speaking by and large, with the exception of the question of the 80 per cent. and the 100 per cent., the conclusion to which the Coalition Government came was substantially the conclusion to which we came. That should always be remembered.
May I remind your Lordships that this is a debate:
"To call attention to the administration of the Town and Country Planning Act."
Occasional remarks have been made in the course of the debate dealing with administration. For instance, one noble Lord said that the machinery was much too rigid, and another noble Lord that it was much too elastic. No doubt that can fairly be said to be administration. But nine-tenths of the discussion has been concerned with the amendment of the Act, and, whatever else that may be, it is
758
not administration. I say this quite frankly to your Lordships. In introducing a new Act, covering a vast field and new topics, I should not be in the least surprised if difficulties and emergencies were thrown up which might require an amendment of the Act itself. Nor, if I thought that was the case, should I hesitate to come to your Lordships to bring about that result. I should not feel in the least apologetic I would say that experience had shown that the Act was not working well here, there or somewhere else. But that is not administration.
Neither should I feel in the least surprised or apologetic if I found that the administration was defective in various respects. I will certainly do what I can to see that all these matters, whether they are mere matters of administration, with which alone this debate was supposed to be concerned, or whether of amendment of the Act, with which this debate was, in fact, concerned, are brought to the notice of the Minister and inquired into. For my own information and my own interest I shall ask to have sent to me the explanation of some of these extraordinary cases which have been cited. I call them extraordinary,
because the case which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, cited is to my mind absolutely baffling. Although I am certain he told us what he believed to be the fact, and took steps to verify it, I cannot understand it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Which case?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The case of the bank and the chemist's shop. If the rental value of the bank and the chemist's shop is the same, then, on the face of it, there should be no development charge. I would very much like to look into that case to see whether there is or is not some other explanation, because it so often happens, in my experience of life, that when one gets the other side of the picture explained one gets a wholly different point of view put forward. I do not commit myself at the moment.
I would like to say this, because it bears on a good many of the observations that have been made. I believe there are certain principles which are essential to any planning Act—and here I am dealing with the point which the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition put to me. If I may say so, he missed

759
the consideration of this point. I do not believe you can have a Planning Act that is going to work unless you try to achieve this result. First of all, you must treat the man who is refused permission to develop, the man who is given permission to develop, and the man who has his property compulsorily acquired, on the same basis. The refusal or the granting of permission to develop should be based on public grounds. You should not, by refusing permission to develop, penalise a man; and equally, by granting him permission to develop, you should not allow him to reap large rewards. I am sure that everybody on both sides of the House who has considered this question of planning—I feel that I can speak with some little authority on this point—has come to that conclusion. If you are going to do that, then you must have some such system as we have here.
What is that system? It is a system in which we base ourselves upon existing use, and we consider what is the value of the property as it is to-day, without permission to alter, to extend or to build, as compared with what it would be if that permission were granted. We must have some differentiation between the two cases. It may be it is wise, for reasons which appealed to us in the days of the Coalition Government, to take only 80 per cent.; or it may be it is right, as we thought when considering this Bill, to take 100 per cent., lest the other 20 per cent. which a man is allowed to keep creeps back into the value of what, in the jargon of planning, we used to call "the float," and increases the value of the land.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Viscount says that the Government take 100 per cent., as was provided in this Bill. But we did not provide that in the Bill when it was before Parliament. That was a regulation made subsequently, and Parliament never knew that it was going to be 100 per cent. when the matter was before them. I agree that some portion of the value must be taken, but in the interests of good planning it seems to me that the important thing is that development should be facilitated. Therefore, the charge ought to be elastic, so as to allow that development to take place. I think 100 per cent. must be wrong.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not agree with the noble Marquess. I see his argument on that, and my recollection is that during the course of the debates in this House I was asked to pledge myself that we should not go beyond 80 per cent. My recollection is that I declined to do so. I do not think that the fixation of 100 per cent. came as a great surprise to anybody. The principle upon which we must base this is the existing use value. If a man has a right to change that use, he must pay a development charge for that privilege.
The noble Earl, Lord Halifax, explained to me that he had to go, and he will be able to read what I say about this matter to-morrow morning. Let us take the noble Earl's case. He was going to convert a coach-house into a small residential house. The house, when completed, would he much more valuable than the coach-house. Had he been minded to sell it, lie would obviously have been able to get much more money for it than he would have done for the coach-house.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Why should he not?—I agree. But it is right that if you are going to grant him the right to develop, you should exact from him a development charge, unless you are going altogether to differentiate his case from the case of the unfortunate man to whom, on some public ground, you decline the right to develop and whom you send away with nothing. Therefore, to have the system fair, you must exact a development charge from one in order to put the two things on an equation. Then you compensate everybody who has not development rights out of this fund, which may or may not prove enough. That is the setup, and I believe that that scheme is right. It is, of course, only too possible that in the administration of this
scheme there have been delays, but whether they are due to undue elasticity or undue rigidity I am not sure. We must do everything we can to improve the administration so far as we can, and I am not so foolish as to imagine that in this short space of time, with a wholly new concept, we can get this thing working perfectly.
I would like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who suggested that the

761
Central Land Board had had instructions from somebody to exact the uttermost farthing. I have had some experience of the workings of the Central Land Board, and I have been immensely impressed by the way they are trying to do their work. I do not believe for a moment that they are trying to exact the uttermost farthing. I believe that they are trying to be fair, and I think that by and large they have succeeded. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, say that in 50 per cent. of the applications there had been no development charge, and that in 95 per cent. of the other 50 per cent. the development charge had been agreed. That does not seem to indicate that there is great hardship in this matter. Of course, in some cases it may be that the small man is unduly oppressed. But I am certain that the Minister will he the first person in the world to endeavour to avoid that result or the subjecting of him to pressure.
It has been said that this is holding things up so badly that no one can develop land. I only regret to say that at the present moment there is little substance in that contention, because, owing to the difficulties and the stringency of our financial position, unfortunately NA, e cannot build anything like so much as we should wish. The Central Land Board were most anxious to see how this scheme was working in this respect. They sent out a notice last autumn in which they asked anybody who had permission to build, or who wanted to build and could not obtain permission, and who found it difficult to get the land required, to come to them for help. They would secure that he obtained the land at existing use value, if necessary using their powers to prevent his being squeezed and made to pay twice over. In the twelve months since then there have been 1,100 applications made over the whole of Great Britain. On investigation it transpired that in many of those cases the applicants stood not the slightest chance of getting a building licence for many years to come so they could not build even if they bought the land at once. The Board went into every one of these 1,100 cases and came to the conclusion that only in eleven cases was it desirable for them to act and secure the land at the existing use value. It is rather idle, in the light of those facts, to tell me that people are
762
desperate about the inability to get land, and that there is great need to give the land owner an inducement or anything of the sort. It simply is not working in that way. There is now available—though I do not say in every county in the country—all the land, and more, required for building any building which receives or is likely in the near future to receive a building licence.
Now I come to this question of the higgling of the market. Of course, it is true that this development value has some of the attributes of a tax about it, but it is also true that it has some of the attributes of a sale. The scheme is this. The owner is left with his land, but he is confined b the existing use of his land. He is paid his share of the £300,000,000 for the development rights. That is the scheme, and subject to errors of administration—which there may well he—that scheme works, and should work, well. Lord Clydesmuir's illustration about the rolling mill is a criticism of the Act itself. It is legitimate to raise it in this House, where we are not unduly bound by rules of older, but if he or I had done anything of this sort in another place we should have been properly called to order, because it is a question arising out of the Act itself.
With regard to all these matters which have been discussed, I am not so foolish as to imagine that is this short period we have developed a perfect system. I am not so foolish as to imagine that the Act itself cannot be improved in some respects, and I can assure your Lordships that all the criticisms which have been voiced to-day will be looked into. On the other hand, I greatly deplore some of the criticisms which have been made, and which to my mind strike at the very vitals of the Act. I do not believe for a moment that we can have a Planning Act unless we are 2repared to have a system of development charge, and I do not believe we can have a system of development charge unless that development charge is based on the distinction of the existing use and the value of the land with the right to develop. I believe that to be fundamental in any system of planning.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is not the point we were making, if the noble and learned Viscount will

763
allow me to say so. The point is that it is a rigid development charge of 100 per cent. I now have before me the noble and learned Viscount's words on the Second Reading. This is what he said:
"I submit that it is much better to leave matters with the Central Land Board who can take into account all the facts of a given case, and in particular, at the instance of the planning authorities, can have regard to the need for encouraging development in some areas and not in others, and so on. It is because we are convinced that the inflexibility of the arbitration machine is much more likely to be harmful and discouraging to developers that the Bill avoids it and relies upon flexibility—flexibility not only in amount, but also in the method and time for payment."
That is what we relied upon when we gave this Bill a Second Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is encouraging to know that the noble Marquess relied so fervently upon any observations of mine. My impression is that this matter was developed at much greater length at a later stage of the Bill, but I cannot pretend to remember all I have said on all the Bills that have come to your Lordships' House in the last four and a half years.
The right reverend Prelate asked me about trees. The difficulty here, as the right reverend Prelate knows, is to balance the material need for timber, on the one hand, and, on the other, the aesthetic value of trees, which causes us to preserve all the trees we can. I will certainly see that the suggestions which the right reverend Prelate made are conveyed to the Forestry Commission, with whom I am closely associated, and I know that wherever they can preserve the trees they will do so. With regard to caravans, that is a matter which, of course, comes under two sets of powers: planning and public health. The public health function regulates sanitation; it is not concerned with the use of the land. However, I have long thought that we ought to consider the whole matter. It came up in acute form in our discussions on the New Forest Bill. The problem is that everybody wanted to get rid of these caravan dwellers, but that nobody knew where to put them.
That is all I can say, except that I wish that if noble Lords have any specific complaints they will let me have them beforehand, so that I may go into them
764
and see what can be done. It may be that there are cases which need looking into. I particularly hope that I shall obtain further information about the case of the bank and the shop, of which Lord Llewellin spoke. I can assure your Lordships that these matters that have been raised will be looked into most carefully. I aim not going to attempt to answer them on the spur of the moment, but I will see that they are all carefully considered. And if we come to the conclusion that some alterations are necessary, whether in administration or legislation, we shall not hesitate to deal with the matter.
5.53 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we have had a worth-while debate, and I thank the noble and learned Viscount for saying that he will have these cases looked into. In regard to the bank case, this went to the Central Land Board; and I should like to quote from a letter subsequently written by a reputable professional man acting in the case:
"…the district valuer assessed a development charge of £6,000 stating that this represented two years purchase of the agreed rental value for the ground floor and basement, to which only a change of user applied. He admitted that the rental value was identical whether for a bank or ordinary retail user, but argued that a bank's covenant had a higher value 'by two years purchase to that of a retail trader. My late firm argued that this involved discrimination in the value of the personal covenant for the user involved and stated a case—on this principle—to the Central Land Board.
I gather that this case received close consideration at highest quarters but without any ruling. The district valuer subsequently intimated that he would be prepared to modify his views and offered to settle at an arbitrary sum of £1,000.
In spite of strong recommendations against acceptance, and obviously with much reluctance, my clients agreed to pay the development charge of £1,000, purely on economic grounds that an appeal would involve much delay and therefore considerable loss of revenue."
That is the particular case. I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for saying he will look into it.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald for saying that he will have this matter of the extra 10 per cent. looked into. It is as if the Inland Revenue authorities, on your sending in a tax return—they knowing, perhaps, that you have an investment which

765
has not yielded a dividend for last year—say to you, "You must pay another surtax on that dividend this year because in future years you may get it again" That is what the Central Board are saying, in effect, with regard to proposals to erect buildings at some future date.
I am certain that no one in this House—not the noble and learned Viscount, not the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, not myself, whose Amendment it was—ever thought that the matter was going to work in that way. I hope that the inquiry that is going to be made into these cases will result in something being done, whether it be a matter of administration or otherwise. I gathered from what the Lord Chancellor said that it was a matter of ad ministration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Some of it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I suggest that there is not much difference between us.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: A hundred per cent!
LORD LLEWELLIN: But, whatever the reason is, it is rather absurd that a firm should have to pay all immense development charge for installing in the roof of their factory a new and better ventilation system for their employees, which did not involve any extension of floor space or of manufacturing capacity. It is also absurd in the instance given of Lord Halifax's converted stable. It is no doubt true that there was an improvement and that the noble Earl got some value out of it. But who paid the money to improve it? Not the State. It was the noble Earl who put
766
his money into making those improvements. He spent perhaps two or three hundred pounds on the conversion. It has nothing in common with betterment that was originally obtained from the expenditure of public money. The position now is this: if a man spends money on trying to improve his property, whether industrial or residential, and thus improves the value of property in this country by putting up a building that will attract greater rates he is told that he has to spend something more, because the Government will charge him for making this improvement to the countryside. That is the kind of way in which, in practice, this Act is not working out as it should.
Referring again to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and going on a little further, I find these words at Column 273 of Volume 148:
"First of all, instead of saying that the land owner was to have to pay only 80 per cent., so that he shall have some inducement in developing, we have this idea of the Central Land Board, which gives very much greater elasticity; instead of a rigid 80 per cent. in each case you get mole elasticity, which I think is good."
Now we have a rigid 100 per cent, in every case, which we think is bad. At any rate, we have had a worth-while debate. I hope that this matter will be fully looked into by the Government, and I am obliged to the Lord Chancellor for saying that it will be. On that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.