Sitting of 22 November 1949

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

  PENSIONS (ALLOWANCES)
  Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Pensions the number of unemployability supplements, constant attendance allowances, and allowances for lowered standard of occupation now in payment, and the number in payment with the maximum rates then payable, at the correspon-

  ALLOWANCES IN PAYMENT AT 30TH SEPTEMBER

  1945

  1946

  1947

  1948

  1949

  Unemployability Supplement:

  Numbers

  …

  5,830

  6,470

  6,960

  9,590

  15,950

  Maximum weekly rate

  …

  20s.

  20s.

  20s.

  30s.

  30s.

  Constant Attendance Allowance:

  Numbers

  …

  2,690

  3,210

  4,550

  5,580

  7,610

  Maximum weekly rate

  …

  *20s.

  40s.

  40s.

  40s.

  40s.

  Allowance for Lowered Standard of Occupation:

  Numbers

  …

  —

  810

  1,780

  4,320

  15,310

  Maximum weekly rate

  …

  —

  11s. 3d.

  11s. 3d.

  20s.

  20s.

  *The maximum rate of Constant Attendance Allowance for officer pensioners before 1946 was £100 a year. In regard to the other items in the above table the maximum rates for officers were the annual equivalents of the weekly rates shown in the table.

  Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Pensions what is the annual value of the payments which are now made by his Department to a 100 per cent. disabled ex-Service man of the rank of private, who married after his discharge and has two children, and who draws unemployability supplement and constant attendance allowance; and what was the annual value of the maximum payments which could have been made in a parallel case in 1919, 1929 and 1939 respectively.
  Mr. Simmons: The present annual value, assuming constant attendance allowance at the maximum rate, is £379, 12s. The annual value of the maximum payments
  168
  ding dates in 1945, 1946. 1947, and 1948, respectively.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons): As the information required is somewhat detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Briefly, the total of the three allowances in payment has increased from 8,520 in 1945 to 38,870 today.
  Mr. Symonds: Will my hon. Friend do all he can to give publicity to that remarkable increase, so that the country can be fully aware of the way in which, since the war, this Government have looked after the injured and ex-Service men?
  Mr. Simmons: The 24th Report of my right hon. Friend was obtainable in the Vote Office yesterday, and I hope that every hon. Member will get a copy and will give publicity to the work that has been done.
  Following is the information:
  which could have been made in corresponding circumstances in 1919, 1929 and 1939 was £156.
  Mr. Symonds: Does that very largely increased figure include the children's allowance as provided by the Ministry of Pensions, and would the children's allowance provided by the Ministry of National Insurance be over and above that figure?
  Mr. Simmons: A pensioner with two children would receive, in addition to the figure I have already given, the five shillings given by the Ministry of National Insurance for the second child.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Barrack Accountants
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the long waiting list of Service pensioners for employment as barrack store accountants and barrack inventory accountants, he will now transfer the established civil servants at present holding posts as barrack fuel and light accountants to other posits and reopen this type of employment to Service pensioners.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to his Questions on this subject on 22nd February last. There is no longer a grade of barrack fuel and light accountant, the posts in question having been assimilated to the general clerical class of the Civil Service. To regrade these posts to barrack accountants would be contrary to the general policy that clerical work shall be done by clerical grades.
    Lieut-Commander Hutchison: In view of the fact that something like 455 pensioners are on the waiting list for employment as barrack wardens, will not the Under-Secretary reconsider this decision, which has caused great dissatisfaction?
    Mr. Stewart: I think we must look at the question as a whole. It should be remembered that, in the general clerical class to which these posts have now been assimilated, there are vacancies reserved for ex-Regular Service men.

    Military Mission, Greece (Commander)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for War what are the qualifications of Major-General C. D. Packard, Director of Military Intelligence, for command of the British Military Mission in Greece.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Major-General Packard has had a distinguished career both as a commander and as a staff officer. Among his many appointments he has commanded an Infantry Brigade, has been Deputy Chief of Staff in the Mediterranean theatre and Chief of Staff to the Allied Commander in Austria. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that in view of his extensive command and staff ex-
    170
    perience, Major-General Packard is particularly suited to be the Commander of the British Military Mission in Greece.
    Mr. Piratin: Will the Under-Secretary say what is the purpose of sending an officer who held the post of Director of Military Intelligence in this country to the Military Mission in Greece, whose aim, we are told, is only to advise the Greek Government on military matters?
    Mr. Stewart: As I have already pointed out, the particular qualification to which the hon. Member refers is only one of a number of qualifications held by this officer.

    National Service Men (Part-time Posting)
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War how long before the end of their whole-time service will National Service men be told to which Territorial Army unit they will be posted for part-time service.
    Mr. M. Stewart: National Service men will normally be told at least six weeks before they complete their whole-time service, to which Territorial Army or Supplementary Reserve unit they will be posted.
    Mr. Low: Would it not be a good thing if they were told much earlier than that, and would it not be a good thing if the War Office quickly made up its mind about the Territorial unit to which these men are to be posted, in order that they might tell the Territorial unit itself?
    Mr. Stewart: We shall certainly tell the Territorial unit itself within at least six weeks. I am endeavouring to put it at a minimum.
    Colonel Dower: Would it not be desirable, if possible, to let them know earlier, so that they can receive training in the technical branch of the Service to which they are to be posted after their National Service training?
    Mr. Stewart: Certainly, it is desirable to let them know to which unit they are to be posted.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the Minister ensure that, as far as possible, these men will be posted to the same arm of the Service as that in which they

    171
    served their National Service in the Regular Forces?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, as far as is possible, but the hon. and gallant Member will realise that a good many other considerations will have to be taken into account in determining in what unit a man will serve in the Territorial Army.
    Mr. Low: Once they have been told to which unit they will be posted, are they then allowed to volunteer for another Territorial Army unit, or is that option to volunteer taken away from them?
    Mr. Stewart: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Vane: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the normal National Service man will be allowed to go to the unit of his choice?
    Mr. Stewart: That is not always possible.
    Mr. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men will be posted at the end of their whole-time service to the Territorial Army; and how many to the Army Reserve.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The proportion in which National Service men will, at the end of their whole-time service, be posted to the Territorial Army and to the Army Supplementary Reserve, respectively, will depend, to a considerable extent, upon the response which is made by volunteers for the Territorial Army and for the Supplementary Reserve. Present plans, however, envisage that between 75 and 80 per cent. of National Service men will be posted to the Territorial Army, and the remainder to the Supplementary Reserve.
    Mr. Low: In view of the present shortage of volunteers for the Territorial Army—which is likely to continue for at least another year—would it not be wise if a higher proportion than 75 per cent. were posted to the Territorial Army?
    Mr. Stewart: It is 75 or 80 per cent., and, as I stated, that figure is subject to modification, in the light of the response to recruiting in both organisations.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the
    172
    20 per cent. which it is proposed to send to the Army Reserve will be men who are known to be going into reserved occupations, and whether those who will be sent to the Army Reserve will normally be men in reserved occupations?
    Mr. Stewart: Not necessarily.

    Private, Parachute Regiment (Sentence)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will review the sentence of 112 days' detention passed on Private Gilbert Edward Watson, Parachute Regiment, for conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline in failing to prepare for action in an aircraft when ordered to do so.
    Mr. Odeyasked the Secretary of State for War whether consideration can be given to the possibility of transferring to another regiment Private Gilbert Edward Watson, of the Parachute Regiment, who has been sentenced to 112 days' detention for refusing to jump from an aeroplane.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: This sentence will be reviewed by the Command concerned under normal arrangements next month. Private Watson will be transferred out of the Parachute Regiment.
    Mr. Blackburn: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a most unsatisfactory answer; that this soldier, according to the Press reports, asked to be transferred from the Parachute Regiment and said that he did not think he could jump, that he was then ordered into an aircraft and was subsequently ordered to jump and failed to do so? Does not my hon. Friend realise that it is a great honour for anybody to belong to the Parachute Regiment and that if he feels that he has to transfer himself he loses the honour, and that it is absolutely disgraceful for the Government to be responsible in any way for a sentence of detention against a man who refuses to jump?
    Mr. Stewart: I have some sympathy for the feeling behind what my hon. Friend has said, but I do not think that he has the story correct by any means. The position is that this soldier was sent on a refresher course—he had previously done work of this kind—and it was made clear to him, as to other men on that

    173
    course, that he could at any time honourably withdraw from it. But, of course, once he had decided of his own free will to complete the course and was posted to an airborne unit, he was then expected to carry out the ordinary duties of that unit. As I have said, the sentence is subject to review.
    Earl Winterton: Is not the procedure which the hon. Gentleman has laid down the normal procedure in these cases? Is it not usual to review a case?
    Mr. Stewart: That is so.
    Mr. Shurmer: He ought not to have been sentenced.
    Mr. Low: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether, in fact, this man asked to be transferred from the Parachute Regiment?
    Mr. Stewart: That is not my information.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: While the Secretary of State for War is carrying out his tour of the Middle East, will the Minister invite his right hon. Friend to bale out himself and then to review the sentence?
    Mr. Shurmer: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is causing great concern and much comment up and down the country, and that the last has not been heard of it? It is most disgraceful that this man should have been sentenced.
    Mr. Blackburn: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that even during the war it was not the practice to court-martial soldiers who refused to jump, and that it really seems absolutely stupid to court-martial them now in peacetime when there is no danger to the country?
    Mr. Odey: Does not the Minister realise that it is quite clear that Private Watson is not a suitable member of the Parachute Regiment and that it is quite futile to sentence him to 112 days' detention for not carrying out a task for which he is obviously unsuited?
    Mr. Stewart: I fully appreciate the opinions expressed in all parts of the House on this matter, but I do not feel that any injustice has been done so far in carrying through the normal procedure where a soldier, for whatever reason, does
    174
    not fulfil the duty required of him. I shall, of course, convey to my right hon. Friend the feelings expressed by hon. Members in many parts of the House, and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend will be capable of dealing with this matter with justice and humanity without the advice of the hon. Member opposite.

    Entrance Examination
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War how many candidates sat for the Civil Service Commissioners Army Entrance Examination during the May-October period; how many candidates were successful in the written examination; how many have been accepted for entrance to the Royal Military Academy; how this compares with the eight previous periods; and what action will be taken to encourage sufficient candidates to come forward in future.
    Mr. M. Stewart: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Major Beamish: Does the Minister recollect that some three weeks ago his right hon. Friend, in reply to an inspired Question, sought to prove how many benefits had been conferred on Army officers? Is not the proof of the pudding in the eating, and does not the Minister agree that the shortage of potential officers is an extremely grave matter?
    Mr. Stewart: I think the hon. and gallant Member should first study the answer which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, from which he will see that the number of candidates—when it is fully known for this year, which it is not yet—will compare favourably with that of previous years.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the original Question and say what steps are being taken to encourage recruitment?
    Mr. Stewart: We are arranging talks to individual classes and meetings between headmasters and senior officers at the War Office and the Royal Military Academy. It is mainly by approaches to schools of that kind that we are likely to get useful results.
    Following is the answer:
    The number of Civil Service Commissioners examinations a year was increased in 1949 from two to three.

    Date of Army Entrance Examination

    Sat

    Qualified at written examination

    Accepted for entry to Sandhurst

    December, 1946

    …

    …

    …

    …

    476

    275

    173

    173

    June, 1947

    …

    …

    …

    …

    531

    271

    164

    318

    December, 1947

    …

    …

    …

    …

    371

    234

    154

    June, 1948

    …

    …

    …

    …

    399

    276

    148

    264

    December, 1948

    …

    …

    …

    …

    241

    174

    116

    February, 1949

    …

    …

    …

    …

    305

    237

    136

    233

    May, 1949

    …

    …

    …

    …

    243

    167

    97

    October, 1949

    …

    …

    …

    …

    250

    not yet known

    not yet known

    The figures for accepted candidates, taking account of the number likely to be accepted from the October examination, show that the position arising in regard to the 1949 examinations is no worse than in previous years. Nevertheless, steps are being taken to increase the existing publicity given to the attractions of a Regular officer's career by talks given to individual schools and meetings of headmasters by senior officers of the War Office and the Royal Military Academy.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    Beaches, Shoreham and Lancing
    Brigadier Prior-Palmerasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how soon a decision will be arrived at in regard to the development plan for the Shoreham and Lancingbeaches.
    The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): I hope to give a decision to the local planning authority within the next three weeks.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is the Minister aware that the county council's proposals were drawn up within four months of the scheme being suggested, since when the matter has hung fire for practically a year, and does he not consider that deplorable in view of the state of mind of the residents in this particular area?
    Mr. Silkin: This is a very complicated proposal. There were 70 objectors at the public inquiry, including a number of important local authorities. The matter
    176
    Statistics in respect of the examinations held since entry to the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, was opened in December, 1946, are as follow:
    is very controversial and a certain amount of time is inevitably taken up in going into the various objections raised.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is there any truth in the suggestion that the file was lost between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the Ministry of Health for something like seven months?
    *See Columns 1329 and 1330.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents, like those of my hon. and gallant Friend, are disturbed at the delay and that there seems to be some mystery about the matter? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the mystery is, and why he has taken so long to come to a decision?
    Mr. Silkin: I have not taken up all the time; the local authority has taken up a good deal of it. The right hon. Gentleman's own constituency is against the proposal; it is one of the objectors. I have now promised to give a decision within three weeks.

    Ironstone Workings
    13 and 15. Mr. Mitchisonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning (1) whether he is aware of the need to restore the land devastated by ironstone workings in the Midlands; what progress has been made by the two Standing Conferences appointed to co-ordinate the views of those concerned; and when he expects to receive any report;
    (2) whether he can now make a statement on his policy as to the restoration of land worked for ironstone in the Mid-

    177
    lands; and what steps are being taken to ensure working in such a way as to admit of full restoration to agricultural use.
    Mr. Silkin: I am aware of the need to restore this land, and the Standing Conferences, which have been examining this question, have prepared interim reports, of which I have received advance copies. I will make a statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is the Minister aware that this matter is really urgent, that there is very considerable and widespread feeling about it throughout Northamptonshire, including feeling among the steel workers themselves, and that a statement of policy was to be made "at the earliest possible moment" over three years ago? In the circumstances, will my right hon. Friend do his very best to produce both a satisfactory and a rapid statement?
    Mr. Silkin: In answer to these many questions, I have promised to make a statement as soon as I have had an opportunity of considering the reports which have been submitted to me.
    Mr. Mitchison: Will that be before Christmas?
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Minister of. Town and Country Planning how many many public inquiries have been held about iron ore workings in the Kettering Division and for what purpose and with what present result.
    Mr. Silkin: Two local inquiries have been held for the purpose of obtaining the views of the parties and other interested persons. I am now considering the Inspector's reports.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is the Minister aware that a number of other local inquiries have been held or are being held in the neighbourhood, and when does he expect to reach any decision on any of these local inquiries?
    Mr. Silkin: The two local inquiries to which I referred are the only ones which have been held. There are two more which will be held before the end of the year.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is it not about time that some decision was come to about these matters? At present the inhabitants of Kettering and the neighbourhood. who
    178
    are accustomed to walking in this part of the country, are unable to do so, and nobody knows what is going to happen to the fine woodlands which concern everyone in the countryside.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Does the Minister ever make any decision, except hopelessly wrong ones?

    Tree Felling, Harting
    Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many trees have been felled at the beauty spot known as the Warren, at Harting, in West Sussex; and whether the action he has taken has resulted in a cessation of the felling.
    Mr. Silkin: Ninety-four trees have been felled. Since, as I informed the hon. Member, the trees concerned are dangerous, I do not propose to intervene in the matter.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In view of the fact that there were only 88 trees to begin with, is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that his Departmental mathematics are correct? As the trees have now been felled, will he ensure that the country planning of this area includes the reafforestation to which he previously referred?
    Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman must have miscounted, because there were 200. If he cares to pay another visit he will see that there are still 106 trees left. Due regard is being had to the need for re-plan ting, and that will be pressed on.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of cutting of trees and reafforestation going on in Sussex at the present time, and that those who are taking part in it, like myself, believe that it is in the best interests of the country?
    Mr. Silkin: I am very much obliged for the assistance of the noble Lord.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the local authorities in this area are made aware of the fact that they can, if necessary, issue tree preservation orders in order to keep the 106 trees which he has mentioned?
    Mr. Silkin: I must assume that the local authorities in this, as in other areas, know their powers.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Ministry Staff, Edinburgh
    Lieut-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware that two ex-Service men employed as temporary clerks in the Central Pensions Branch, Grassmarket, Edinburgh, who have been successful in the written examination for establishment and have been interviewed by the Selection Board, are having their services terminated as from 24th November on grounds of redundancy; and whether he will suspend the discharge of these men until such time as Parliament has had an opportunity of debating the whole question of the discharge of ex-Service temporary clerks under the provisions of Treasury Circular No. 14/45.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): The chances of these officers in the competition, the results of which will not be available for some time, are in no way prejudiced. They are being dealt with under special provisions in a national agreement governing the establishment of temporary officers, and their retention out of turn would be a breach of the national agreement on redundancy.
    Lieut-Commander Hutchison: Can the Minister say if the head of the Department was consulted before notice of discharge was given to these men, and whether account has been taken of their professional abilities?
    Mr. Steele: As I have indicated in answer to previous Questions on this matter, the question of discharge of redundant staff is governed by a national agreement to which both sides are parties.
    Lieut-Commander Hutchison: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I wish to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Explanatory Booklet
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of National Insurance if he will now issue a comprehensive booklet explaining the provision for entitlements to pensions, benefits, etc., and the procedure for application required by the various National Insurance, National Assistance and National Health Service Acts and by the relevant regulations made thereunder.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Any publication about the Health Service would be a matter for my right hon. Friends. As regards the Acts administered by my Department, I would like to issue comprehensive booklets in due course, but I do not think that I should be justified in doing so in present circumstances.
    Mr. Davies: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any idea of when he is likely to issue this comprehensive booklet which would be so valuable to Members and others who have to refer to a very large number of leaflets of all sorts and sizes at the present moment?
    Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate that, but the production of a booklet would require quite a large staff, and I think that I shall have to wait until the organisation and administration are running more smoothly before that is done.
    Mr. Symonds: In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend issue leaflets all of the same size so that they can be kept together reasonably well?.
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, that is being done now.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of National Insurance how much increase in unemployment benefit it is estimated would be necessary to make it equivalent in purchasing power to the pre-war rate of 17s.; and what consideration he has given to increasing the amount accordingly.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I cannot add to the information given on 8th November by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on the purchasing power of the £. Any increase in the rates of benefit would involve an increase in contributions which I am not prepared to contemplate in present circumstances.
    Mr. Piratin: Is the Minister aware that in order to meet the increased cost of living, according to official figures, the amount required would be about 5s., and that that 5s. would only bring the figure up to the pre-war figure in buying terms? Has not the Minister, therefore, responsibility at least to provide the pre-war unemployment benefit?
    Mr. Griffiths: The unemployment benefit was raised with other benefits when the new Insurance Act came into force. I would remind the hon. Member that the benefit not only of unemployed persons, but also of their wives and children was also raised. In addition, those benefits can be supplemented by assistance.
    Mr. Piratin: My Question was related particularly to the single man who today receives only 20s. If the Minister examines that category he will see that the single man gets no additional benefit whatsoever.
    Mr. Griffiths: A single man is also entitled to national assistance.

    Old Age Pensioners
    22 and 23. Mr. Tom Brownasked the Minister of National Insurance (1) if he will give the number of old age pensioners in receipt of supplementary pensions during the quarters ended 31st March, 30th June and 30th September, 1949, respectively; and the amount of money paid in each quarter and the average amount paid during the nine months, excluding rent allowances;
    (2) if he will give the number of old age pensioners in receipt of rent allowances in the four regions, stating the number in each region separately; and the average amount paid to each person.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: As the answer is somewhat long and contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The number of old age pensioners, including wives of pensioners, in respect of whom assistance grants in supplementation of pension were being paid was about 710,000 at the end of March, 1949, 730,000 at the end of June and 745,000 at the end of September. The September figures are distributed as follow:

    London

    152,000

    Rest of England

    483,000

    Wales

    56,000

    Scotland

    54,000

    In practically every case the assessment included a sum for rent, except in a few cases where the pensioner was living rent free and where he was paying an inclusive charge for board and lodgings; but as the amount actually paid is a net amount arrived at after deducting the pension and
    182
    other resources (if any) it is not possible to allocate part of it specifically to rent. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to page 44 of the Annual Report of the National Assistance Board for 1948 which gives, in considerable detail, information about rents paid by applicants for assistance on the basis of a special inquiry made in November, 1948. It is regretted that the detailed amounts of money paid in each quarter are not available.

    National Assistance Board (Regulations)
    Mr. T. Brownasked the Minister of National Insurance what steps he has taken since 3rd November last to consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the National Assistance Board for a general review of the regulations of the Board.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I have taken note of the views and suggestions put forward by my hon. Friend in the Debate on 3rd November. I am regularly in touch with the Board on the working of their regulations, but I cannot add to what I said on this subject in reply to questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Collins) and Ilkestone (Mr. Oliver) on 15th November.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that there is grave disquiet in the country about the treatment given to old age pensioners when they have to receive assistance from the National Assistance Board area offices? Will the Minister get some determination and some kick into this matter, and get the thing settled?
    Mr. Griffiths: I think that, on the whole, the Board are doing their work very well indeed. In fact, they are very generous in regard to the discretionary allowances, as I indicated in my reply last week.
    Mr. Mikardo: While joining in the tribute to the work of the National Assistance Board, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that the Board's general scales were fixed as being just sufficient to maintain health and to avoid malnutrition, and that since then there has been a rise of a number of points in the cost of living index and a further rise is projected? Therefore, by definition the scales are insufficient to maintain health and avoid malnutrition.
    Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is assuming what is not correct, and that is that all the pensioners are existing on these scales. There is provision for discretionary allowances. I would also remind my hon. Friend that the disregards which we permit are very much more generous than they have ever been before.
    Mr. Carmichael: Will the Minister realise that the regulations are so rigid that an extra allowance can only be made in exceptional cases, and that consequently because of the scaling there is need to review the regulations again?
    Mr. Griffiths: I do not think the regulations are being applied rigidly. One-third of all the pensioners receiving supplements are also receiving a discretionary allowance. That does not indicate much rigidity.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the demands that are being made for an increase for lower-paid workers, will the Minister not realise that old age pensioners get less than half of what is paid to the lower-paid workers, and that they cannot possibly live on the amount that they get. even with assistance from the Assistance Board?
    Mr. Griffiths: I think the Ministry, the Board and this Government have every right to be proud of what they have done for the old people.
    Mr. Brown: Arising from the replies given to the Question and from the apparent complacency of the three Departments referred to on 3rd November, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Gallacher: Why are hon. Members opposite cheering? They starved them.

  SCOTLAND

    Building Labour
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that the building labour force in Scotland is sufficient for the building of the married quarters programme without interfering with the housing programme of the local authorities.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable disquiet among local authorities in Scotland about the slow progress on married quarters for miners? What steps have been taken to see that there will be an increase of building labour to meet this demand and other demands?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I thought the Question on the Order Paper was directed to married quarters for persons in the Forces and, as far as that programme is concerned, no delay has occurred in the local authorities' housing schemes because of the building of married quarters.

    Advisory Council on Education (Report)
    Lieut-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received the report on public libraries and other cultural services in Scotland from the Advisory Council on Education; and whether it is his intention to publish this report in due course.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): The Advisory Council have informed me that they are now engaged on drafting the Report but that they will be unable to complete it until next year. The Report will, in due course, be published as a Command Paper.

    Hospital Staffs
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to exercise more supervision over the regional hospital boards in their increasing appointments of administrative and medical chiefs and if he will take steps to halt the advancing of salaries of administrative and medical chiefs particularly at a time when the Trade Union Congress is constantly exercising restraint on the wages increase appeals of the workers.
    Mr. Woodburn: Regional hospital boards cannot increase the number of their senior administrative appointments, medical or lay, without my approval and in recent months there has been no substantial increase either in this category or in the number of their senior medical appointments in hospitals. As regards the

    185
    second part of the Question, I can assure the hon. Member that the Government's policy as regards salaries and wages applies in the Health Service as in other fields.
    Mr. Carmichael: Would my right hon. Friend give us some figures to show that there has been no substantial increase? On the second point, is he aware that very large increases have already been made in the salaries of people under the hospital boards? Surely, if we call a halt to the old-age pensioners and to the assistance boards, we should call a halt to this.
    Mr. Woodburn: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. He is probably mistaking the fact that a great many scales have been settled by the Whitley Council—the Council for settling what these scales should be under the National Health Service. These may only now be becoming applicable in his district, but no increases have been granted.
    Mr. Carmichael: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls a halt to the proposals for increases for higher civil servants, then if these increases have not yet been made operative, surely it is the time to call a halt here, too. These increases are very high indeed.
    Mr. Woodburn: I want to make it clear to the hon. Member that these are not increases. These are the rates for the job, which have now been established and which are being paid for the first time.
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what Were the respective numbers of specialists attached to the Royal, Victoria and Western infirmaries in Glasgow on 1st July, 1948; what are the corresponding numbers today; and what changes in management and administration have made necessary the engagement of additional specialists.
    Mr. Woodburn: The Royal, Victoria and Western Infirmaries in Glasgow are now managed as key hospitals of three separate groups of hospitals. The numbers of specialists on the staffs of the hospitals in these groups in July, 1948, were 109, 55 and 141, respectively. The corresponding numbers today are 103, 58 and 142, showing an over-all net decrease of two. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of staff engaged on health administrative work in the area now designated the Scottish Western Regional Hospital area on 1st July, 1948; what is the total number of staff employed today under the supervision of the Western Regional Hospital Board; and why there has been an increase in personnel.
    Mr. Woodburn: The number of administrative and clerical staff employed on the administration of the hospital and specialist services in the Western Region on 1st July, 1948, could not be obtained without undue labour. Many of the technical and financial staff, for example, in the employment of local authorities were partly engaged on this work and partly on other work altogether. The number employed at 31st August, 1949, in the offices of the Regional Board and the 37 boards of management is 475.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Glasgow we now have 14 hospital management committees, each with its full-time administrative secretary and deputy, and that this body is performing the work which was formerly largely done by one health committee, with three sub-committees, one chief officer and a deputy?
    Mr. Woodburn: I think my hon. Friend had better put down that question. Glasgow is a big and important city and I would not accept that picture of the change without verification.
    Mr. Carmichael: The Secretary of State indicated in his answer that the administrative staffs numbered just over 400, but the Question I asked said, "under the supervision of the Western Regional Hospital Board." I therefore think I am entitled to include in that all the hospitals in the Western Regional area. Have I to take it that we have only a little over 400 engaged on the administrative work over that entire area?
    Mr. Woodburn: Might I repeat the last sentence of the reply. It was:
    "The number employed at 31st August, 1949, in the offices of the Regional Board and the 37 boards of management is 475."

    Doctors' Lists
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes

    187
    to take to reduce the maximum number of patients on a doctor's list from 4,000 to 3,800, or some agreed smaller number.
    Mr. Woodburn: I am arranging to explore this possibility with the profession in Scotland.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is prepared to publish lists of areas in Scotland which are over-doctored, under-doctored and adequately doctored; and to revise the lists annually.
    Mr. Woodburn: I have asked the Scottish Medical Practices Committee to let me have, for early publication, lists of the areas which they consider most in need of additional doctors. Published information will be kept up to date as necessary.

    Agricultural Land
    Sir David Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of schemes he has embarked upon since 30th June for the recovery of lost agricultural land.
    Mr. Woodburn: Twenty-five arterial drainage schemes initiated since 30th June will result in the improvement of some 1,900 acres of agricultural land at present in a low state of productivity. In addition, I have since that date approved 1,597 applications from proprietors and tenants for 50 per cent. grants to help them with land drainage works estimated to cost £240,000. Agricultural executive committees have been asked to examine whether there are acreages in their areas which might be considered for reclamation in terms of Section 57 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not obvious from that reply that the Minister is not replying to the Question I put on the Order Paper? May I ask him whether he recalls the words he used in the important Scottish Economic Debate on 30th June, when he said that at that moment he was considering land reclamation free of cost to the land owner or to the tenant? It is those schemes about which I am inquiring.
    Mr. Woodburn: If the hon. Member will put down a specific Question on that point I will endeavour to answer it.

    Statistics (Publication)
    Mr. Emrys Hugbesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish an illustrated booklet dealing with recent Scottish statistics in the same way as the facts about our finances were portrayed in the booklet "The Budget and Your Pocket."
    Mr. Woodburn: Statistics relating to employment in the principal Scottish industries, to the output of raw materials and manufactured products, to the progress of factory building and to shipping movements are published each year, together with a wide range of information about economic developments in Scotland, in the White Paper on Industry and Employment. I am afraid that this information would not readily lend itself to pictorial treatment.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the Lord Provost of Edinburgh has recently been in Canada talking about the "grim facts" of Scotland? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the grim facts are that the death rate has gone down, that infantile mortality has gone down and that the tuberculosis rate has gone down? Cannot he publish that in picture form so that the Lord Provost can understand it?
    Mr. Woodburn: I think that is a possibility. I will look into the question of whether such a document could be prepared.
    Sir William Darling: In answer to the supplementary question the right hon. Gentleman said "that is a possibility." To which possibility does he refer—the intelligence of the Lord Provost or his own ability to produce this booklet?
    Mr. Woodburn: For the moment I was referring to the publication.

    Harbours, Keiss and Brora
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the harbour at Keiss is silted up and that the sea channel and bar is in a similar state, and that craft returning to harbour can only enter at high tide, thus involving danger to fishermen who may be compelled to seek refuge from storms; and if he will have this situation remedied.
    Mr. Woodburn: My information is that the silting up at this harbour is not such as to interfere seriously with fishing. The harbour is privately owned, and it is for the proprietor to undertake any necessary works.
    Sir D. Robertson: Will the Secretary of State accept my assurance that the information on which this Question was based was given to me by a deputation of fishermen? Surely, the men who use the harbour are the best judges as to the facts? Can the right hon. Gentleman bring any pressure upon the proprietor who is responsible?
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Woodburn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a lot of pressure not to interfere with private enterprise in these matters.
    Lord John Hope: That is about the silliest remark possible.
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the harbour at Brora has become silted-up with sand; that fishing craft can only enter and leave at high tide, and that small coastal vessels which formerly used the port are no longer able to do so; and if he will take steps to have the sand removed and protective groynes erected to prevent a recurrence of silting.
    Mr. Woodburn: I am aware of the silting up at this harbour, but I understand that the few fishing boats based on it are still able to work regularly. The harbour is privately owned, and while this continues it does not qualify for assistance from public funds.

    Legal Aid Act (Operation)
    Mr. Willisasked the Lord Advocate the effects of the decision to postpone the coming into operation of the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): Discussions are proceeding with the interests concerned as to which parts of the Act can be brought into operation, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Willis: In view of the very full information given to the House last week concerning England, can my right hon.
    190
    and learned Friend say why it takes so long, in the case of Scotland, to make a statement?
    The Lord Advocate: Because we have a different procedure and a different jurisdiction in our courts in Scotland, and we are anxious to get the best possible results having regard to those differences.

  ADVISORY COMMITTEES
  Mr. Osborneasked the Prime Minister if in view of the need to free more people for the task of production, he will extend to all Ministries the policy under which the Minister of Fuel and Power has disbanded 700 local fuel economy committees.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. The Government are much indebted to the public-spirited persons who give their services part-time on advisory committees of this kind; and I am not prepared to disband them before their work is done.
  Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of time wasted in committees—although the National Health Service has been vindicated today—in the nationalised industries, until it is becoming almost a racket? Will he take a look into this matter so that people can be released for productive work?
  The Prime Minister: My experience is that whether there is waste of time on committees or not depends very largely on the committee men or women, as the case may be; but I am quite sure that in a democracy useful public service of this kind is invaluable.
  Sir W. Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Fuel and Power has disbanded local fuel committees?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of that, and the reason is that they were put into operation for a particular purpose in 1947, and that since then, under the Electricity Act. other committees have been set up to perform those functions.
  Mr. Osborne: That is just my point. Will the Prime Minister look at other committees whose functions have ceased

  191
  to exist and disband them, so that the people on them can get on with a real job of production?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman can give me some instances of committees that have ceased to function I should be pleased to deal with them.
  Mr. Osborne: I will do that with pleasure.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Industrial Costs (Taxation)
    Mr. Enrollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, with a view to helping to give effect to the Government's policy of preventing taxation entering into industrial costs, he will refund Purchase Tax paid by firms for equipment, stores and other items required in connection with their business activities.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): No, Sir. This is not practicable; nor do I think it would make any material difference to industrial costs.
    Mr. Erroll: In view of that answer will the right hon. and learned Gentleman desist from making statements to the effect that taxation does not enter into industrial costs?
    Sir S. Cripps: If it is relevant to the matter being discussed at the time.

    Government Securities
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the approximate total foreign holdings of Government stocks and, in view of the large sales from these accounts since the pound was devalued, if he will take steps to restore public confidence.
    Sir S. Cripps: I regret that this information is not available. In reply to the second part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 17th November last to Questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Wyatt).
    Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that this sale
    192
    of gilt-edged securities by foreigners has been stopped now? Or can he take any steps to stop it?
    Sir S. Cripps: No. I have no evidence that any took place at all.
    Mr. Osborne: Then will the Chancellor read the editorial columns of "The Times," which paper is regarded as responsible?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is not evidence.
    Mr. Drayson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear to holders of British Government securities overseas that they are quite free to do what they like with them?
    Sir S. Cripps: They are free, subject, of course, to control restrictions. They are not wholly free.
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon which public funds has fallen the cost of raising the level of gilt-edged stocks under his predecessor to permit the issue of 2½ per cent. Treasury Stock at par in 1946; and how much public money was used to achieve this object.
    Sir S. Cripps: Purchases and sales of Government securities in the market by official funds have taken place from day to day under this Government as under previous Governments but in accordance with long-established practice I am not prepared to disclose details of these transactions, or add to the information given to Parliament in the statutory accounts of official funds.
    Mr. Osborne: Could the Chancellor say whether it is true that it cost about £800 million to put the gilt-edged market right in order that his predecessor's vanity could be satisfied?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is not true, but I cannot say whether anything else is true or not.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the purchase price of the £28.2 million 2½ per cent. Treasury stock held in the account of the Fund for the Banks for Savings, and of the £21.7 million, £201 million, £1.6 million, £1.1 million, and £1.2 million, of the same stock held in the accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund, the

    193
    National Insurance (Reserve) Fund, the County Court, the Crown Lands and the Supreme Court, respectively.
    Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to the statutory accounts of these Funds, which are laid before Parliament. I am not prepared to add to the information contained in the accounts.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that the Chancellor will not publish these figures because they show the enormous loss to the taxpayer; is the Chancellor not aware that this is due to the cheap money policy followed by himself and his predecessor; and will he Set up a committee, under the chairmanship of his predecessor, to inquire into these losses?

    Government Information Services
    Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why in view of the erroneous figures contained in Command Paper 7697 concerning Government Information Services, that document had not been withdrawn by 15th November although the errors were known to his Department in June; and when a corrected Command Paper will be presented to Parliament.
    Sir S. Cripps: For reasons of economy, and because the error was small in relation to the total figures, it was thought sufficient to report the facts to the Public Accounts Committee, at whose recommendation the White Paper had originally been presented. I do not now propose to present a corrected Command Paper, which would, in view of the Government's economy proposals, be quite out of date, but the corrected totals for Departmental expenditure will be shown in next year's White Paper.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the Chancellor agree that there were six mistakes in this document, and that the salaries and expenses of the Air Ministry's information staff were shown at a third of the correct figure, a total error of £30,000? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard this as a small drop in the ocean of inaccuracy of Government statements?
    Sir S. Cripps: There was an obvious misprint in which certain figures in one line were repeated in the next, instead of a new lot of figures.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is it not a fact that members of the Public Accounts Committee, as appears in the published minutes, express the view that this document should be withdrawn and a correct version issued? Was it not a fact? May I have an answer?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware, without having the document before me, whether that was so or not.

    Exchange Control Offences (Informers)
    Mr. Selwyn Lloydasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what Vote are included rewards paid to persons giving information with reference to alleged offences under the Exchange Control Act.
    Sir S. Cripps: Any such rewards which are paid in future will be charged against the Treasury Vote, Subhead H, Exchange Control.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this practice of paying people money to give information about alleged offences is on the whole repugnant to ordinary people? Will he ensure that in no case is money ever paid to informers who have incited to the commission of an offence?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware, especially in view of the fact that every Government for many years past have had such a system in operation in regard to Customs, the Inland Revenue, the Post Office, the Metropolitan Police, the Board of Trade, and the Ministry of Food.
    Mr. Frank Byers: Would not the Chancellor look at this question again and see that it is the extension of this system which is repugnant to many people at the present time? Would he not look at it again?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am not inclined to look at it again. I see no reason why offenders against the Exchange Control Act should be particularly lightly dealt with.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the offences themselves are repugnant to the people of England?
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his regulations make informers about breach of the exchange regulations liable for Income Tax on the rewards they receive from the Treasury, and what expenses may be deducted.
    Sir S. Cripps: These rewards will not be liable to Income Tax; but this is a matter of Income Tax law and not of regulations.
    Mr. Keeling: But what about the second part of the Question? May I give a concrete example? Supposing a person crosses the Channel or the Atlantic for no other purpose than to spy on his fellow-passengers, would his fare be considered a deductible expense?
    Sir S. Cripps: Not unless he was travelling on business in the normal way.
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new decision he has reached as a result of his reconsideration of She subject of payments to informers for giving information which leads to convictions under Exchange Control Regulations.
    Sir S. Cripps: None, Sir.
    Mr. Blackburn: Is not the Chancellor aware that this practice of making payments to informers conflicts with the good sense and the moral sense of the British people; and is it not illogical for him, as the main Socialist to advocate co-operation with the Communists before the war, to raise this matter again, because of the fact that the Tories have done it before? The fact that the Tories have done it before, is no reason for us to do it now.
    Sir S. Cripps: In every democracy that I know of this is common practice, and if properly administered does no harm.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Chancellor aware that, in the view of a very large number of persons, some of the provisions of the Exchange Control Aot are not consonant with the free society in which we believe; arid that, however much we may deplore it and enjoin observance of the law, payments to informers will inevitably result in an extension of tax evasion?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question asked what new decision had been reached, and the
    196
    answer was "None." Surely that completely answered the Question.
    Mr. Blackburn: In view of the very grave issues which are involved, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Dollar Payments (Germany)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is being taken to reduce the dollar drain incurred by this country resulting from agreements in force governing the Bi-zone of Germany.
    Sir S. Cripps: Contrary to expectation the sterling area was so far in deficit with the Trizone during the third quarter of this year that we had to make a settlement of 7 million dollars in October. We have since, in conjunction with the German authorities, been looking into the causes of this deficit. Should trade, following this review, take the course which we both expected earlier on, we shall not have to make any further dollar settlements.
    There is a further liability on His Majesty's Government, under the Revised Fusion Agreement of December, 1947, to convert into dollars, in certain circumstances, sterling held by the Trizone in a separate account. This matter, with others, is now being discussed with the U.S. Government.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Could the Chancellor say whether in fact he anticipates that any further drain will occur?
    Sir S. Cripps: I cannot say with any definiteness, obviously, in view of what has happened in Europe lately, but I hope that no further drain will occur.

    Raw Materials (Dollars)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far it has been possible to maintain the dollar price for raw materials to the United States of America subsequent to devaluation.
    Sir S. Cripps: Following on devaluation there has been a general reduction in dollar prices for exports of raw materials from the sterling area. The amount of the reduction varies from case to case, but on average appears to be less than 10 per cent.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what members of the sterling area are allowed to retain for their own use dollars and hard currency arising out of sales by them of raw materials outside the sterling area; and in particular, if any such arrangement has been made in the case of Indian manganese.
    Sir S. Cripps: It is the established practice of the sterling area that members retain such dollar earnings as they need to meet current working requirements and sell any surpluses to the Bank of England. No special arrangements apply to sales of Indian manganese.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Do the sales of manganese now bring any dollars into the sterling area pool, or are all the dollars so obtained held by India and used by India?
    Sir S. Cripps: I cannot allocate dollars received for any particular purpose. Under the arrangement with India, they have a certain number of dollars available; the rest come into the pool.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Then will the Chancellor give the figures of the amounts received from India in the last three years?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. We are not prepared to disclose the accounts of other countries with the Bank of England.

    Austrian Loan
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when first the Italian Government refused to acknowledge their liability to honour their guarantee to repay 20½ per cent. of the drawn bonds of the Austrian conversion loan, 1934–59; what reason they gave; and what further representations are being made by His Majesty's Government.
    Sir S. Cripps: The Italian Government's attitude on their default, which dates back to 1939, is given in the Press announcement of 13th July, 1948, to which I referred the hon. Member on 5th April, 1949. We shall continue to press the Italian Government to meet their obligations.
    Mr. Keeling: Yes, but would the right hon. and learned Gentleman state when they first disputed their liability—a fact
    198
    which was first revealed by the Economic Secretary only two or three weeks ago?
    Sir S. Cripps: I stated, in 1939.
    Lieut-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is it not the case that the Italian Government are at present in possession of a sterling credit of some £40 million? Would it not be reasonable for those arrears of withdrawings, which amount to no more than £750,000, to be met?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is a question of who is giving the decision as to what is reasonable.
    Lieut-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Head-lamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken since 1st July, 1949, to induce the Czechoslovak Government to terminate its default in respect of the Austrian Government Guaranteed Loan, 1934–59; and whether His Majesty's Government have accepted the interpretation of Article 8 of the Trade and Financial Agreement of the 28th September, 1949, which holds the Czechoslovak Government liable to fulfil its guarantee, but not necessarily until the last day of the duration of the agreement, namely, 30th June, 1954.
    Sir S. Cripps: After protesting against this default, His Majesty's Government made every effort during the recent financial and trade negotiations to ascertain the standpoint of the Czechoslovak Government and to induce them to pay. It appears that the Czechoslovak Government contend that their guarantee was. conditional on the continued operation of certain measures of international control over the Austrian Government's finances, which have lapsed. His Majesty's Government have supported the Trustees in rejecting this contention entirely. Several other Governments are involved, and discussions are proceeding through the diplomatic channel. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

    Chief Planning Officer (Duties)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the duties now performed by Sir Edwin Plowden: and whether it is intended to continue his appointment.
    Sir S. Cripps: In reply to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statements made to this House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 27th March, 1947, and 2nd February, 1948, about the duties of the Chief Planning Officer. As regards the second part, the answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would not some economy be achieved by putting this appointment on a basis of payment by results?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

    Vaciric Company Limited
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present total of advances by the Government to the Vactric Company Limited.
    Sir S. Cripps: Three hundred and forty thousand pounds.
    Mr. Erroll: In view of this very large sum, can the Chancellor say whether he is satisfied with the workings of this company?
    Sir S. Cripps: As far as I am aware, the company is now operating successfully.
    Sir W. Darling: Is the sum the Chancellor has just mentioned in addition to the sum supplied to this company by the I.C.F.C.?
    Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Gentleman will have to put that question down.

    National Debt (Interest Payments)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the interest on the National Debt for 1948, amounting to £495,398,374, is paid on that part of the debt which was at the time of payment owned respectively by the Bank of England and by the "Big Five" banks.
    Sir S. Cripps: These figures could only be obtained with a wholly disproportionate expenditure of time and labour, which I am not prepared to contemplate.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that the Chancellor will not produce these figures because they show him up so badly?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.
    Sir W. Smithers: Of course they do.

    Agricultural Loans (Interest)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he gave his approval to the higher rate of interest now fixed by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation for new loans to landowners who are undertaking the improvement of cow-houses and other farm buildings; and if he will give an assurance that restrictions will not be placed on capital expenditure needed to ensure full and economical food production.
    Sir S. Cripps: The Agricultural Mortgage Corporation informed me of the proposal to raise the rate of interest for new loans from 3½ per cent. to 4 per cent., and the Minister of Agriculture and I are satisfied that this was advisable. This increase—which applies to all new loans made by the Corporation—will enable it to meet the demands made on it for long-term credit.
    Mr. Hurd: On what grounds did the Chancellor consider it appropriate to raise this rate of interest to 4 per cent. when landowners are expected to find £25 million for necessary improvements?
    Sir S. Cripps: On the ground that we were not prepared to subsidise landowners through the Corporation more than to the extent of £150,000 a year.

    Nationalised Industries (Compensation)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the danger of inflation, and the considerable expenditure to be incurred in paying large annual sums in compensation to shareholders of industries that have been nationalised, he will introduce legislation providing for part payment of such compensation to wealthier shareholders in a manner akin to the post-war credit scheme.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. This proposal would be inconsistent with the Government's compensation policy, to which effect has been given in several Acts of Parliament.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Chancellor aware that we are anxious to help him in his financial difficulties; and. as I have

    201
    drawn up a memorandum outlining a scheme for post-crisis credits for shareholders payable in 1972, will he look at it seriously?
    Sir S. Cripps: I will look at any scheme the hon. Gentleman draws up.

    Government Departments (Staff Cuts)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that in the making of staff cuts in Government Departments the principle of last in first out does not make for efficiency, he will reconsider the use of this method.
    Sir S. Cripps: The order of discharge on redundancy is governed by National Whitley Council Agreements, which make special provision for the discharge out of turn of those found unable to carry out the duties of their grade with due efficiency. I do not consider that these agreements require revision.
    Colonel Hutchison: Would not the Chancellor agree, and if so draw it to the attention of those in charge of nationalised industries, that the position of a newcomer under the "last in first out" system becomes intolerable, because he is always last in and consequently always first out?
    Sir S. Cripps: This arrangement, which was made as regards Government Departments with the Whitley Council, is, I think, a fair one and is operating well.

    American Play (Tax Exemption)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds he absolved from the payment of Entertainments Duty an American play entitled "A Streetcar Named Desire," now playing at the Aldwych Theatre.
    Mr. Marloweasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon what grounds a play called "A Streetcar Named Desire," now being performed in London, was exempted from Entertainments Duty; and what persons or bodies were consulted before the exemption was granted.
    Sir S. Cripps: This production is exempt from Entertainments Duty under the provisions of Section 8 of the
    202
    Finance Act, 1946, because the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that it is provided by a body which is not conducted or established for profit and whose aims, objects and activities are partly educational There was no occasion for consulting any other person or body.
    Mr. Marlowe: Is the Chancellor aware that a vast body of opinion does not share his view that this play is in any way educational; and will he review the test by which exemption is granted, in view of the fact that, as a large number of people who perform in and produce this play are drawing hundreds of pounds a week out of it it is ridiculous to call it non-profit making?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I have never suggested that in my view, or the view of anyone else, this play is educational. That is not the issue which Parliament arranged should be applied to such cases in the Finance Bill, 1946.
    Mr. Cooper: Can the Chancellor say what is the procedure by which judgment is passed on the suitability, artistic merits, and so forth, of a play of this sort; do H. M. Tennents have any say whatever in this matter; and can he explain why a non-profit making amateur dramatic society in Middlesbrough is being threatened by his officials with Entertainment Duty on its performances which would not otherwise be presented, while a commercial play of a rather unsavoury nature like this is exempt?
    Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Order Paper I will answer it.
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Would the Chancellor at least give an undertaking to look into the situation which is created to see whether he can possibly justify a case where we are paying dollars for this play and exempting it from tax, when other much worthier plays are mulcted in heavy sums?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I am satisfied that the test which Parliament laid down is a proper one. That is, not that the Treasury should be made a censor of plays, but that it should examine the qualities of the company which produces the plays, and, if it falls within the definition Parliament has made, whatever play it may produce is exempted from tax.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: Does that answer mean that because the company is educational, and is supposed to have high standards of taste, it can put on any kind of play it likes, however low and however repugnant to the general taste in this country?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is certainly not a matter which, in my view, should be dealt with by taxation.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Can the Chancellor say what happens to the profits which have obviously been made by this particular play, which I believe is booked up till next February?
    Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Order Paper I will answer it.
    Mr. Marlowe: Does not the Chancellor realise that what in effect happens is that vast profits are taken and merely put away and not distributed, but used later on; that, merely because the producing company does not make a profit, it does not prevent a vast number of other people making a very considerable profit; and will he review the matter in the light of that?
    Sir S. Cripps: If by "profit" the hon. and learned Gentleman means receiving a salary, that is not the point. The company which produces this cannot be a profit-making company. If it should become such a thing it would cease to qualify for exemption.
    Mr. Wyatt: Even though there may be some abuse of this system, is it not the case that, on balance, it produces a good result in enabling the production of plays of a worth-while character, which would otherwise not be produced; and will my right hon. and learned Friend resist any attempt of censorship of plays by Treasury officials?
    Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.
    Mr. Cooper: May I gather from the answers which my right hon. and learned Friend has given, that this non-profit making society in Middlesbrough would be exempted from Entertainments Duty?
    Sir S. Cripps: I suggested that my hon. Friend should put down a question on the Order Paper.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Earl Winterton: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of which I have previously given notice, for a Ruling on the admissibility of Questions relating to the Press? It is based upon a Question asked by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) last week, the gist of which was to ask whether a committee would be set up to investigate charges made by the "Sunday Express" newspaper, that officials of nationalised industries are using their position to buy motor cars through official channels. I am not challenging the action of the Clerks at the Table responsible for passing the Question. If I were to do that, it would be obligatory on me to put down a Motion. I am only asking for information. I think that it will be agreed that it is an established Ruling of successive occupants of the Chair that a question challenging the accuracy of a newspaper report cannot appear on the Order Paper, since no Minister is officially responsible for the newspapers, using that phrase in its widest sense. My respectful request is for a Ruling whether in future it will be possible to put in the guise of a Question a similar demand to that put by the hon. Member for Uxbridge for a committee of inquiry, whenever an hon. Member considers that a particular newspaper has published false information regarding the speech or activities of a Minister responsible for a Government Department or a nationalised industry.
  Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for putting his question. I think that his question is quite accurate, and that the answer I must give will be exactly what he wants.
  The Question to which the noble Lord refers was first handed in by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and carefully considered from the point of view of Ministerial responsibility. It was slightly amended, in agreement with the hon. Member, to its final form and then passed, bearing in mind that the House had recently discussed the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press and had also heard Questions answered on the subject raised in the hon. Member's Question. Perhaps I might add that so far as my recollection goes, in view of what happened then, and the previous Questions asked on this matter, it was

  205
  referred to me, and I gave my answer, giving him the benefit of the doubt. Looking back on the matter now in the light of the noble Lord's argument, I have come to the conclusion that the Question should not have been allowed, and it cannot be in order to ask for a committee of inquiry into charges made by a newspaper or, indeed, on any other newspaper statement. To allow such a Question would tend to infringe Rule 15 on page 337 of Erskine May. If there is any blame attached, I take the blame myself because I passed the Question.
  Mr. Beswick: I have listened to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, with some interest, and, for my part, I accept, as I must do, what you have said. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said that the reason for my Question was that I wished to attack a newspaper—[Interruption.]—Oh, yes, that I wished to attack a newspaper, and he imputed a motive of my own in putting down that Question. May I say that in fact I did not come to this House in order to attack a newspaper. I first of all wrote to the editor of the "Sunday Express' asking if he would be good enough to give me the details on which he based certain charges, and the editor of the newspaper concerned wrote to me a short note—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may later on, if he chooses, make a personal statement, but this is not the moment to debate my Ruling.
  Mr. Nally: This is an important matter, and may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you will define it a little more extensively. Let us suppose, as a hypothetical case, that a Question is put on the Order Paper based upon a newspaper account of something alleged to be done in a Government Department as a consequence of which the hon. Member has put down a Question. There then follows a supplementary question in which the hon. Member asking the supplementary question of the right hon. Gentleman mentions that the basis of the question is a specific newspaper. Are we to assume from your Ruling that it will in point of fact be out of Order, either directly or indirectly, to suggest in this House that the editorial methods of a particular newspaper in relation to a particular story stand in need of some attention?
  Mr. Speaker: If I was quick enough I should rule the supplementary out of Order. The basis of a Question is that the hon. Member takes responsibility for it himself. I think that we had a case in point two or three days ago when there was an alleged strike in Walsall and the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) complained that because he refused to make a statement in a Question that there was such a strike going on the Question was not accepted but that the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) and another hon. Member—I forget who it was—took the responsibility and therefore their Question went on the Order Paper. Hon. Members cannot quote what a newspaper says. They must take the responsibility themselves.
  Mr. Beswick: Would I be in Order to ask what progress has been made towards setting up a Press Council?
  Mr. Speaker: I think that my Ruling covers that. I really do not know where Ministerial responsibility lies in that case. What I would suggest is that the hon. Member tries it—that he puts a Question down, and sees what happens..
  Mr. Mikardo: Would your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it is inadmissible to ask a Minister whether he will set up a Commission and investigate a statement made in a newspaper, also apply to a Question asking the Minister to set up a committee to investigate a statement made publicly in some other form, for example, in a broadcast or in a public speech by an individual?
  Mr. Speaker: In vain is the net spread in the sight of the bird. I am not going to answer a hypothetical question. I would like to see it in writing first, and then I will answer it.
  Mr. H. D. Hughes: Following your reference to the Walsall question, may the House take it, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing in your Ruling which would prevent Press stories being exposed in this House by hon. Members taking the responsibility for the facts and asking supplementary questions based on them, as was the case in that particular instance?
  Mr. Speaker: I think that was covered by my Ruling the other day.

POLICE CONDUCT (PRESS LETTER)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement to the House.
On 24th September last, the "New Statesman and Nation" published a letter, signed "John Hadlow," describing an incident alleged to have taken place in Dalston Lane, Hackney, "one recent Sunday," in which very specific charges were made against the conduct of the Metropolitan Police.
On that same day, in the belief that "John Hadlow" was the real name of the writer and that he could be easily traced and would be willing to substantiate his allegations, I gave instructions that he should be interviewed and his statements examined. It was with surprise that I later discovered that the signature was a nom de plume, although no indication of this fact, known to the editor of the "New Statesman," as he admits, was given on the date of publication
In pursuance of my instructions, the Commissioner of Police wrote to the editor of the "New Statesman" asking him to invite "John Hadlow" to give details of the incidents, in order that the allegations might be properly investigated. As the Commissioner's approach failed to produce the requisite information, notwithstanding the editor's willingness to co-operate, I myself wrote to the editor of the "New Statesman," stating that if Mr. "Hadlow" was willing to come forward and give evidence I would be prepared to set up an independent judicial inquiry.
I also gave an assurance, on behalf both of the Commissioner of Police and of myself, that Mr. "Hadlow's" position as a reporter vis-à-vis New Scotland Yard would not in any way be prejudiced, although I made it clear that I could not guarantee immunity from legal process taken by any individual police officer who believed that his official character had been traduced. At the same time I took preliminary steps, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, for a high judicial officer to be available to hold an inquiry into the complaints.
208
I informed the House on 27th October of the steps which had been taken. On 3rd November, in a supplementary question, the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) alleged that the police knew the identity of the writer of the letter, that they had at once visited his employers and that he had "got the sack." The hon. Member suggested that the act of victimisation which Mr. "Hadlow" had feared, and which I had said would not take place, had been brought about by the police themselves.
I at once investigated this allegation, and received a written categorical assurance from the Commissioner of Police that no Metropolitan Police officer had approached the employer of any journalist thought to be "John Hadlow." The editor of the "New Statesman" had previously informed me that Mr. "Hadlow" had told him that "Hadlow" had informed someone senior to him on his paper that he was the author of the letter published in the "New Statesman."
After the statement made by the hon. Member for Finsbury, I made further inquiries of the editor of the "New Statesman," who informed me that Mr. "Hadlow" had, in fact, been asked to resign from the paper, but that on no occasion had Mr. "Hadlow" made allegations to the editor of police intervention against him. The hon. Member for Finsbury tells me that he has no positive evidence of police intervention, but that his statement was based on information supplied to him. As a result of my inquiries, I can only assume that the hon. Member has been misinformed. In view of the statement made by Mr. "Hadlow" to the editor of the "New Statesman," no intervention on the part of the police is required to explain the call for Mr. "Hadlow's" resignation.
More than a month has now elapsed since I wrote to the editor of the "New Statesman." The editor of the "New Statesman" and the hon. Member for Finsbury inform me that they have seen Mr. "Hadlow" separately on several occasions, and I have been in frequent communication both with the editor and with the hon. Member. They inform me that Mr. "Hadlow" declines to come forward on the ground that the disclosure of his identity would make it difficult, if not impossible, for him to earn his livelihood in his profession.

209
The hon. Member for Finsbury suggested that I should see Mr. "Hadlow" under seal of confidence, but I have not felt able to accept this suggestion. As the House will appreciate, if Mr. "Hadlow's" identity were disclosed to me under a seal of confidence and I interviewed him under that seal, I should be in an impossible position, since I would be able neither to communicate my information to this House, nor to take any action on it to have his allegations publicly and judicially tested.
There has been a further development. On 8th November, the editor of the "New Statesman" informed me that a member of the public, other than Mr. "Hadlow," had witnessed an incident, which he assumed was the incident referred to by Mr. "Hadlow," but he did not give as full details as those contained in Mr. "Hadlow's "letter. At my request, the editor asked his informant whether he would be willing to make to a representative of the Treasury Solicitor a statement which, in default of further particulars from Mr. "Hadlow," might afford a basis for an inquiry. The editor informs me that the informant feels that it would be useless to give evidence alone, but that he would be willing to do so if, and only if, other journalists who were present on the occasion in question would do the same.
The position, therefore, is that allegations have been made in the public Press reflecting most gravely on the fitness of a section of the Metropolitan Police to be members of that or of any police force. I am most anxious that those allegations should be fully and properly investigated, but an inquiry cannot be held merely on the basis of a letter in the Press.
If there is to be an inquiry, Mr. "Hadlow," or somebody who believes he saw the same incident, must be prepared to give evidence before an independent tribunal to enable the truth to be ascertained by the usual methods of examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Since no one is willing to come forward to support the allegations, it is not possible for me to set up a tribunal of inquiry.
I have, however, caused to be made, without the assistance of Mr. "Hadlow," such inquiries as are open to me. and have obtained reports from the police
210
about all recent incidents that have occurred in the Dalston Lane area. These reports do not in any respect support the grave allegations made by Mr. "Hadlow." I have also made inquiries about court proceedings arising out of any recent incidents in that area, and I am informed that in no case has it been alleged in court that the police behaved in the manner complained of by Mr. "Hadlow."
It may also be not without significance that the person, alleged by Mr. "Hadlow" to have been assaulted in the presence of the police, has not come forward in support of Mr. "Hadlow's" allegations, and has not seen fit to make any representations in the matter, either to the Commissioner of Police or to the Home Office.
I apologise to the House for the length of this statement, but the history of our own times records in all too ghastly a fashion the danger to human liberty of a police force which adopts a partisan attitude towards the citizens it should impartially protect. The situation in East London is a particularly delicate one. As I have repeatedly assured the House, it has had my constant personal attention.
Conferences with the principal police officers concerned have left them in no doubt as to the insistence of the Government on the maintenance of law and order without consideration for the political, religious or racial affiliations of any individual citizen who may be the subject of their attention, either as in need of protection or for a breach of the law.
I can only say, in conclusion, that I think it is most unfair to the police that grave allegations should be written against their conduct by persons who are unwilling to afford the necessary facilities to enable their charges to be investigated. If any police officer were guilty of the serious misconduct alleged on this occasion, the most severe disciplinary action would be taken against him.
The Commissioner of Police—no less than I—would be most anxious to weed out from the force any person who was shown to be so unfit to discharge the high responsibilities of a police officer and to maintain the high tradition of the British police service. I am sure the House will agree with me that these unsubstantiated allegations should not be allowed in any way to shake the con-

211
fidence of Parliament, or the public, in the impartiality of the Metropolitan Police.
Mr. Eden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side certainly share his sense of resentment at the fact that these anonymous charges should be made in respect of the Police Force? Is there any power in the Police Force whereby they can take action themselves in their own defence against anonymous charges? Further, is it not an extremely undesirable practice that any newspaper should publish an anonymous letter under a genuine name without giving any indication at all, by inverted commas or any other means, that a nom de plume has been used?
Mr. Ede: With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I am not sure how I can answer that, Mr. Speaker, in view of your recent Ruling. I have no responsibility for the correspondence columns of the Press, but I hope I shall not be out of Order in saying that I think, especially where charges against public servants are made, that if the signature is one that cannot be identified there should be some indication of that fact to readers. With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I would remind the House that a police officer is an ordinary citizen. If an individual police officer can be identified in these very vague and general charges, undoubtedly he has the same remedies in the courts as any other citizen. I hope it will be recognised by the House that a police officer is a civilian, and no more. That is the great glory of the British police forces. If any individual officer thinks that he can be identified, I hope he will take action.
Mr. Churchill: Should it not be a little more than that? If an individual officer can be identified, and is slurred upon and assailed in this manner, surely it is a case which might well be considered by the Law Officers of the Crown to be worthy of the attention of the Public Prosecutor as a matter of criminal libel.
Mr. Ede: Hon. Members who recollect this particular letter will remember that no one's name is mentioned. There is an allegation that not far short of 40 officers were involved, but no date, time
212
or place was given. So far as I am concerned, I would do all I could to assist an officer who wanted to vindicate the honour of the Force in this matter.
Mr. Eden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there may be cases—this is one—where a particular officer is not named? In those circumstances is the Commissioner of Police empowered to do anything, or must anything be accepted in the way of charges so long as an individual policeman is not mentioned?
Mr. Ede: The whole question of group libel—and that is what this really is—is a matter which has been engaging the attention of distinguished lawyers recently. I do not think they have found any satisfactory solution to it, and I am sure the House would not expect me, as a layman, to pronounce upon so intricate and legalistic a point.
Mr. Thurtle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the editor of the "New Statesman and Nation" himself, in the week following the publication of this letter, made some very severe strictures on the police which were based on the allegations made in this anonymous letter?
Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. If they could be construed as a libel, they were merely a group libel; they did not single out, so far as I could follow, a particular officer who could be identified.
Mr. Platts-Mills: As I was brought into this matter, may I make one or two observations to the Home Secretary? The right hon. Gentleman clearly admits that there was a journalist who wrote under an assumed name, but I think there is something more. First, this man is an established and reliable journalist of whom his editor said, in his letter of dismissal:
"I would, of course, gladly at all times be ready to give you"—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must ask questions. He cannot challenge or debate the Home Secretary's statement.
Mr. Clement Davies: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) was reading from a document. Is there not a Rule of this House that if an hon. Member does read from a document it must be laid on the Table?
Mr. Platts-Mills: I was not reading from a document. It was a personal memorandum, copied from the original letter of dismissal which I hold in my hand, among other documents. Lest the House should have had any doubt about the terms the editor used, I was reading this copy, showing that he had a high opinion of this man's capacity. The Home Secretary still challenges, apparently, the fact that this man was dismissed. May I remind the House of the terms of the Home Secretary's statement?
Mr. Speaker: The Home Secretary's statement cannot be debated. There is no Motion before the House. There is merely a statement on which questions can be asked. It cannot be debated.
Mr. Platts-Mills: Is the Home Secretary aware that he said on 17th November:
"that what Mr. John Hadiow said to the editor of the 'New Statesman' does not bear out the allegation that he was dismissed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1949; Vol 469, c. 2172.]
Is he further aware that that was before the date of his dismissal? Whatever the right hon. Gentleman said, it had the effect of spreading the idea that the man had not been dismissed or perhaps even the idea that I had misled the House, when two weeks' before I asserted positively that he had been dismissed. Has anyone any doubt that for a young professional man with responsibilities to be sacked out of hand is a very serious issue? Is there anyone who thinks that the victimisation of a professional man is less harmful than the victimisation of an ordinary working person? While we understand the Home Secretary being chiefly concerned about the reputation of the police, does he not agree that the Special Branch of Scotland Yard is a secret and political branch that works hand in glove with M.I.5, and is not answerable to this House, let alone to the Minister?
Does the Home Secretary expect me to tell him what I know about their activities when we know that they would never tell him what they are up to? [An HON. MEMBER: "Do they know what you are up to? "] If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this particular branch of the police knows what I am up to that is certainly true: I am not ashamed of that at all. With the ordinary branch of the
214
police I have most active and cordial relations. Does not the Home Secretary realise that young Fascist blackguards are spreading violence and fear throughout Shoreditch and the neighbouring boroughs? Does he not appreciate—
Mr. Churchill: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what Motion is before the House?
Mr. Speaker: I have interrupted the hon. Member already. There is no Motion before the House. We cannot debate this statement; we can ask questions of the Home Secretary, and that is all. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) was putting his questions almost in the form of a Debate, and I shall not allow him to stand up much longer.
Mr. Platts-Mills: You will observe, Sir, that I was brought into this as though I have some responsibility for it. When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that I sought to put some condition on his seeing this young man, does he not remember that he wrote to me in terms which indicated that he was prepared to see him subject to conditions as to disclosure? I have the letter here, and I will read it if the House desires. Does he not agree that in view of the spreading of this campaign of violence against our peaceful citizens—
Mr. Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Member a lot of rope. He is making all kinds of wild allegations, and I cannot allow him to go on any further. The Home Secretary can now answer the questions.
Mr. Platts-Mills rose —
Mr. Speaker: I have said that I cannot allow the hon. Member to go on any further. He must now resume his seat.
Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I should like most respectfully to draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that in a very considerable part of the Home Secretary's statement mention was made, time and again, of the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) as though, somehow or another, he had been responsible for some of the happenings in connection with the publication of this letter or the events subsequent to its publication.
Mr. Speaker: I read a copy of the Home Secretary's statement as he was reading it. Mention was made of the hon. Member's name, but only occasionally.
Mr. Ede: With regard to the questions put by the hon. Member for Finsbury, I have detailed in the statement the information that was conveyed to me by the editor of the "New Statesman" that this man was asked to resign by the paper which employed him. As far as the Special Branch are concerned, they are responsible through me to Parliament for any action that they take.
Mr. Gallacher: Why was he asked to resign?
Mr. Ede: How do I know why the employer of a journalist asks him to resign? That is not my responsibility.
Mr. Gallacher: Why, if his employer had such a good opinion of him, was he dismissed?
Mr. Ede: That is the responsibility of the editor. With regard to the letter that I wrote to the hon. Member for Finsbury, we were corresponding about this matter, and if there is one thing that happens in correspondence it is that one keeps at arm's length from the other party. I was anxious to know the name of this man. Therefore, I wrote the letter to the hon. Member suggesting that we should meet. At that time he had said that the man was willing to come forward under the seal of confidence. When I met the hon. Member for Finsbury in my room in this House, the first thing I did was to explain to him how impossible it was to meet a man under seal of confidence for the reasons I detailed to the House, which I gather the House this afternoon accepted.
Might I say that if this man or any other man will come forward to substantiate the statement so that the police officers and he can be confronted with one another, a judge will hold an inquiry into the allegations. With regard to this man's professional future, he placed in jeopardy the professional future of a very large number of police officers. Let me add this—I hope there will be no doubt about it that if they or any single officer had been guilty of such dereliction of duty as they were accused of,
216
there would have been nothing short of summary dismissal for any such officer, and I should have had the support of the whole of the police officers of the country in imposing such a penalty. This is a most serious charge to have been made and a most cowardly effort to get out of substantiating it.
Mr. Marlowe: The Home Secretary is quite right that no civil libel proceedings can be taken unless some particular police officer is identified, but it is possible to take criminal libel for a scurrilous attack made on a public body in this way. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider submitting this question to the Law Officers of the Crown for them to determine whether or not it is possible to take criminal libel proceedings against the newspaper, the editor of which no doubt acted innocently, which undoubtedly would have the result of compelling the disclosure of the name of the person?
Mr. Ede: I will consult the Law Officers of the Crown on that point.
Mr. Crossman: While agreeing that my right hon. Friend has been scrupulously fair in his investigations, may I ask whether he does not agree that the pressure put by their employers on Mr. "Hadlow" and on other journalists who were present, to prevent their coming forward, is highly undesirable, and is as much resented by the editor of the "New Statesman" as by himself?
Mr. Ede: I have no evidence that any such pressure is being exerted.
Mr. Lipson: Is it really beyond the Home Secretary's powers to find out who "John Hadlow" really is, and is it not fair to the police, against whom these serious unsubstantiated charges have been made, and in the public interest that he should continue his efforts to find out and should see that the matter is properly investigated.
Mr. Ede: If I could find out who this man was I should publish his name. If he would not come forward, that at least would give the police officers concerned an opportunity of compelling him to face up to the result of the accusations he has made.
Mr. Michael Foot: In view of what has been said in one or two questions, will

217
the Home Secretary confirm the fact that the editor of the "New Statesman" has done everything in his power to assist the Home Secretary in trying to secure an inquiry and in trying to persuade Mr. "Hadlow" to come forward? The second question I want to put is—has it not long been the custom in practically all newspaper offices in certain circumstances to print anonymous letters when, in fact, inquiries have been made as to whether there is really such a person existing, and if that right were to be taken from newspapers it might involve a very serious interference with free speech in this country?
Mr. Ede: Once again I cannot be made responsible for answering for the conduct of editorial offices. The editor of the "New Statesman" has certainly been helpful and has endeavoured to get this man to disclose his identity—
Mr. Jennings: Why did he not tell the right hon. Gentleman who he was?
Mr. Ede: How do I know why? I have trouble enough in explaining why I do things, without being answerable for editors. I do not think—I am speaking only personally now—that charges of this kind should have been ' made in the columns of any responsible newspaper without the editor being assured that the writer would come forward and substantiate them.
Mr. Wilson Harris: Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), it is obviously in the interests of the Metropolitan Police that the identity of this man should be discovered. The Metropolitan Police are in the habit of conducting difficult and searching investigations into all sorts of questions. Does the Home Secretary say they are incapable of investigating this case and establishing the identity of Mr. "Hadlow"?
Mr. Ede: I did not say that, but the hon. Gentleman will recollect that one of the charges made against the police is that they went to the present employer of the person concerned and secured his dismissal. I do not want to lay them open to similar charges of persecution. No one knows who was the author of the "Letters of Junius" and he raised issues
218
of public policy as great as Mr. "John Hadlow" did.
Mr. Beswick: On a point of Order. Would the original Question which gave rise to this statement—which called attention to the allegations in the public Press against officers in the public service—have been in Order under your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, given earlier about questions relating to the public Press?
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I was not listening to the hon. Member.
Mr. Beswick: Might I put this question to you again Sir, in the hope that I might get a reply. I wish to ask whether the original Question, which gave rise to this statement by the Home Secretary and which called attention to the allegations made in the public Press against officers in the public service, would have been in Order under the terms of your Ruling which you gave earlier this afternoon?
Mr. Ede: Further to that point of Order. Might I remind you, Mr. Speaker, exactly how this question came up. A Question was on the Order Paper dealing with allegations of violence in the East End of London, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) asked as a supplementary if my attention had been called to the failure of the police to intervene in a certain case as indicated by this letter. My responsibility clearly is seeing that the police do intervene in such matters, and this was not a question that was based merely on a newspaper statement.
Mr. Churchill: Before we leave this topic, could the Home Secretary say whether he has got a supply of questions like this to keep Parliament going until the Dissolution?
Mr. Speaker: The question asked by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) was purely hypothetical and I should like to see it upon the Order Paper. I should like to see it in writing, and then I will consider it. I cannot answer this type of question: "Supposing so and so, would it be in Order?" No, I want to see this question first.
Several Hon. Members rose —
Mr. Speaker: I think that we had better get on with the next business.

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)."—[Mr. Whiteley.]
The House divided: Ayes. 225; Noes, 102.

Division No. 290.]

AYES

[4. 10 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Piratin, P.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Popplewell, E.

Allen, Scholefteld (Crewe)

Gunter, R. J.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Alpass, J. H.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Price, M. Philips

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Harrison, J.

Proctor, W. T.

Attewell, H. C.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

Randall, H. E.

Austin, H. Lewis

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Ranger, J.

Awbery, S. $.

Herbison, Miss M.

Rankin, J.

Ayles, W. H. '

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Reeves, J

Ayrton Gould, Mrs, B.

Holman, P.

Rhodes, H.

Balfour, A.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Richards, R.

Barton, C.

Horabin, T. L.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvenshire)

Battley, J. R

Houghton, Douglas

Robertson, J. J (Berwick)

Beswick, F.

Hoy, J.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Bing, G. H C.

Hubbard, T.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Binns, J.

Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.)

Royle, C.

Blackburn, A. R.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Scott-Elliot, W.

Blyton, W. R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Segal, Dr. S.

Boardman, H.

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

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Bottomley, A. G.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Sharp, Granville

Bramall, E. A.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Shurmer, P

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Broughton, Or. A. D. D.

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

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Brown, George (Belper)

Janner, B.

Simmons, C. J.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Jay, D. P. T.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

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

Skinnard, F. W.

Burden, T. W.

Jenkins, R. H.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Burke, W. A.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Chater, D.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

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

Chetwynd, G R.

Keenan, W.

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

Cluse, W. S.

Kenyon, C.

Snow, J. W

Cocks, F S.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

Solley, L. J.

Coldrick, W.

Kinley, J.

Sorensen, R. W.

Collindridge, F.

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Collins, V. J.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Sparks, J. A.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Stubbs, A. E.

Cooper, G.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Swingler, S.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Leonard, W.

Sylvester, G. O

Cove, W. G.

Lipson, D. L.

Symonds, A. L.

Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Logan, D. G.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Cullen, Mrs.

Longden, F.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Daines, P.

Lyne, A. W.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

McAdam, W.

Thurtle, Ernest

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

McEntee, V La T

Tiffany, S.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McGhee, H. G.

Tolley, L.

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

Mack, J. D.

Viant, S. P.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Walker, G. H.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

McKinlay, A. S

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Deer, G.

McLeavy, F.

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

de Freitas, Geoffrey

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Warbey, W. N.

Delargy, H. J.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Watson, W. M.

Diamond, J.

Mainwaring, W H.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Dodds, N. N.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Weitzman, D.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

Mathers, Rt Hon. George

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Mikardo, Ian

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

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Millington, Wing-Comdr, E. R

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

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Mitchison, G. R.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Evans, John (Ogntore)

Monslow, W.

Wilkes, L.

Farthing, W. J.

Moody, A. S

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Fernyhough, E.

Morley, R.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

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

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Foot, M. M.

Mort, D. L.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Forman, J. C.

Murray, J. D

Williams, W. T (Hammersmith, S.)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Nally, W.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

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

Willis, E.

Ganley, Mrs C. S.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Woodburn, Rt. Hon A

Gilzean, A.

Oldfield, W. H.

Woods, G. S.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Oliver, G. H.

Wyatt, W.

Gooch, E. G.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Yates, V. F.

Grenfell, D. R

Panned, T. C.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Grey, C. F.

Parkin, B. T.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Grierson, E

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Pearson, A

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Grimston. R. V.

Odey, G. W

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Osborne, C

Barlow, Sir J

Harden, J. R. E.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Bowen, R.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Bower, N.

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

Price-White, D.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, W.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Buchan Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hollis, M. C.

Raikes, H. V.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Hope, Lord J

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Butcher, H. W.

Hurd, A.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Byers, Frank

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

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Carson, E.

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

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Channon, H.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Ropner, Col. L.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Jennings, R.

Sanderson, Sir, F.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Scott, Lord W.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Keeling, E. H.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

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

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Langford-Holt, J.

Smithers, Sir W.

Crowder, Capt. John E

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

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Davidson, Viscountess

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Studholme, H. G.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Digby, S. Wingfield

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

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

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Touche, G. C.

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

MoKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Turton, R. H.

Drayson, G. B.

MacLeod, J.

Tweedsmuir, Lady.

Drewe, C.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Vane, W. M. F.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

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

Marples, A. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Erroll, F. J.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Mellor, Sir J.

Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

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

Gammans, L. D.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

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

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gridley, Sir A.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Brigadier Mackeson and

Colonel Wheatley.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ELECTORAL REGISTERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.20 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Its purpose is to give effect to the Government's decision to abolish the autumn register of electors as one of the measures of economy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced this in the statement which he made to the House on 24th October. It is expected to result in an annual saving estimated at approximately £800,000.
  This is not the first occasion on which the number of registers has been reduced from two to one a year in the interests of economy. The Representation of the People Act, 1918, provided for the publication of a spring register and an autumn register in every, year, but the spring register was abolished in 1926 by the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of that year. From then until 1939 there was one register every year. During the war years there was none, and although in the exceptional circumstances of 1945 there were two, the May register which was used for the General Election, and the October register—
  Mr. McKie: It was a very imperfect one.
  Mr. Ede: Like myself, the hon. Member was a supporter of the Government which passed it and so we must share the responsibility for its imperfections. The October register of 1945 was prepared for the municipal elections which were held in November of that year for the first time since 1939. Since then there has been only one register a year up to last year.
  In 1946 a Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), on which the three principal parties were represented, considered and reported upon future arrangements for electoral registration. Among other things they recommended that there should be two registers a year. They said:
  224
  "We take the view that the importance of having a fresh register for Parliamentary elections fully justifies the preparation of a canvass register every six months."
  The Government sympathised with that view and decided to give effect to this recommendation, although not without some hesitation on the score of expense. Parliament endorsed their decision and accordingly the Representation of the People Act, 1948, again provided for the publication of a spring register and an autumn register in every year.
  Since that was decided the need for economy has become increasingly pressing, with the result that in the course of their recent review of national expenditure the Government came reluctantly to the conclusion that the expense of preparing two registers a year could no longer be justified. They were influenced, however, not only by financial considerations but by the continuous burden placed upon the staff of registration officers and upon the printing trade by the necessity to prepare and publish two registers every year. The Government also took into account the fact that the register will still be more up-to-date than those between 1926 and 1939 because a three months' qualifying period of residence was then required before a person could be registered, whereas there is no such requirement now. The requirement now is normal residence in a particular place on a certain day.
  In deciding to abolish the autumn rather than the spring register, apart from the possibility that the spring register now in course of preparation may well be needed for the General Election, the Government had regard to the fact that whereas before the war the autumn register was needed for the municipal elections in November as well as for the county and district council elections in the spring, the spring register under the 1918 Act was not published until 15th April, which was after the holding of the district and parish council elections in those days. AH local government elections are now held in April or May in accordance with the new provisions of the 1948 Act, and consequently every spring register will in future be used when it is fresh for the local government elections.
  On the other hand, if we were confined only to the autumn register, it would be rather stale by the time the local government election came round in April and

  225
  May, and it would otherwise be required only in the comparatively infrequent event of a Parliamentary election being held between October and March. For these reasons it seemed clear that in the circumstances of today March rather than October is the appropriate time to publish an annual register.
  In addition to dealing with the problem of the single register, the Bill makes certain consequential amendments to the Juries Act, 1922. These apply only to England and Wales. Briefly, the effect is that whereas hitherto the register published in the autumn has served as the basis for the jurors book in the year beginning 1st January after its publication, it is now proposed that in future the annual register to be published in the spring shall serve as the basis for the jurors book for the year beginning 15th August.
  I ought to say a few words on the reasons for selecting that date. I considered at one time selecting 1st June or 1st July as the date for the new jurors lists coming into operation, but that might result in a trial being started at the end of the previous month and a juror being summoned whose name did not appear on the list which came into effect on the 1st of the month.. I am told that it is rather doubtful what effect that might have on any decision reached by the jury if it remained empanelled, whether it would be legal to get a verdict from a jury which contained a person or persons who had not retained their qualification on the new jurors lists. By fixing 15th August as the date we choose a date which is in the Long Vacation when it is unlikely that there will be any jury actions which will be affected by the coming into force of the new register.
  This is a short and quite simple Bill. It carries out quite clearly the purpose which the Government have in mind, and it is, in fact, a re-enactment of the existing law, except for the abolition of one register and for altering the date on which the jury lists come into effect. It does not alter anyone's qualification. It ensures a substantial economy not merely in money but in the strain which is put on the officers of the registration officer's department twice in the year.
  One of the difficulties confronting us in connection with the compilation of the
  226
  existing register is that in these days of full employment it is not so easy to get canvassers who are willing to give up a few days to carry out the canvass required by the registration procedure. It frequently means that persons in the local government offices have to do this work in their evening time, and it is not easy to ask them to do this twice in the year.
  I do not think there is any serious ground for objecting to the Bill. I would remind the House that the disadvantage of a single register as compared with two registers is very largely discounted by the provision for postal voting, which is a feature of the 1948 Act. People who move now will be able to vote by post, so that the old problem of the large number of removals on a state register will not be as acute as it was and people will not be under the same disadvantages, as they used to be in being disfranchised because they move.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: From this side of the House we have made clear our attitude towards the economy proposals of the Government, namely, that we do not regard the total saving on the Budget of £90 million in a full year as anything like adequate when considered in relation to a Budget figure of £3,400 million. It would be difficult, therefore, for us, maintaining as we do that the economies in total are quite insufficient, to take exception to a particular economy measure other than upon very good grounds. For that reason we support the passage of this Bill.
  As the Home Secretary has said, in its detail the Bill follows the provisions of the 1948 Act, the only effective change being to abolish the compilation of the autumn register. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if we decide that it is necessary and desirable to abolish one of the two registers it would, in view of the alteration in the dates at which local government elections are to be held in the future, be preferable on balance to abolish the autumn register. Local government elections are held every year and it is right that they should be held upon a register as fresh and up to date as possible.

  227
  At the same time, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that over the last generation a far greater number of General Elections have taken place in the autumn than in the spring, and the fact that in future we shall rely upon a register prepared in the spring is bound to mean that the register upon which Parliamentary elections will be fought will always be a considerable number of months out of date if elections in the next generation fall as frequently in the autumn as they have done in the past. This is inevitable if we are reduced to a single register a year, but I cannot challenge the decision that the proper register to be abolished by way of economy is the autumn register.
  I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the precise amount of the saving to be effected by the Bill. The Home Secretary gave us the figure of £800,000. I am not clear whether that is the saving which will fall upon the national Budget or whether it will be divided between the national budget and the expenditure of local authorities. The Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926, provided for a single register annually in place of two registers previously. It was then estimated that the saving would be a quarter of a million pounds, and that figure was to be divided equally between the Exchequer and the local authorities. We ought to know whether the £800,000 saved by this Bill will be a saving on the expenditure of the central Government and whether there will be any further saving to be credited to the local authorities.
  The only criticism I have to make of the Bill is that it is made permanent in form. While it is true that this follows the precedent of 1926, in 1948 when we passed the Representation of the People Act, Parliament decided that it would be desirable for the future to have two registers prepared each year if possible. Taking the view that we may one day emerge from the present financial crisis, I should have thought it might have been wise to draw this Bill in a temporary form, to enact that the Bill should last two, three or maybe five years, and to put in the Bill as we frequently do, provisions for renewal by Order in Council, or by including it in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I ask the Government to consider between now
  228
  and the Committee stage whether it would not be worth while putting a Clause into this Bill to make it of a temporary nature so that the matter will be brought up automatically for review by Parliament in three or four years' time.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. Bing: Before the House parts with this Bill may I deal with one problem which arises by reading the Bill in conjunction with the 1948 Act? Looking at Section 1 (2) of that Act, it will be seen that the people entitled to be registered are those who are resident in the district on the qualifying date who on that date, and on the date of the poll, are of full age. As the qualifying date must always precede the date of the poll it seems at first sight that this provision is not really necessary unless it is intended against my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench who are continually growing younger and younger. However, if one looks at the Act again one sees that the section contains a zeugma, as I think the Home Secretary would have said in his schoolmaster days. Those who are qualified by age must be of age on the qualifying date. The qualification on the date of the poll applies only to those who may be subject to legal incapacity.
  What the Bill means, read with the 1948 Act, is that only those people will be able to vote who were 21 on 20th November or, in Scotland, on 1st December, in the year proceeding the issue of the register. That will always mean that there will be about a quarter of a million people—who are 21 years of age and, therefore, entitled to vote—who will not be entitled to vote because, although they were 21 when the register came out in the spring, could not get their names on it in November. If I am right in my calculations, there might be at some time as many as 1,200,000 young people over 21 who will want to vote but are not registered because they cannot get their names on the register. In fact, one could place one's birthday in such an unfortunate way as to be over 22, three months before one could even get on to the register.
  Would my right hon. Friend consider making the date of the publication of the register also the date on which a person must be 21 in order to appear

  229
  on the register? Or. alternatively—and this would not involve much more expense—having a supplementary list which could come into force, say, every six months providing for people who have then become 21 years of age? There is a somewhat similar provision dealing with Service voters who can make their Service declaration before 21. This is not just a lawyer's point and I did not think of it; it was called to my attention by one of the ward parties of my own Labour Party and it concerns both sides of the House.
  In these times it is desirable to give as many people as possible the opportunity of sharing in the government of the country, and it would be unfortunate if, owing to a technicality, people are kept out whom everyone expects to be entitled to vote because they are 21. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will see if something can be done to get them on the register.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Keeling: The Home Secretary made the interesting statement that the register to be issued on 15 th March, which will come into force on that date, may well be needed for the next General Election. Now that both the Parliament Bill and the Iron and Steel Bill look as if they will reach the Statute Book before Christmas, may I suggest to the Government that it would be a very great advantage to the public, to business and to other interests, if the Government did not keep us much longer in suspense as to whether the Election will be fought on the register which comes into force on 15th March, or on the register which came into force last month? I can hardly expect the Under-Secretary, if he replies, to make a pronouncement about the exact date of the General Election.
  Mr. Peake: Why not?
  Mr. Ede: People do make such announcements.
  Mr. Keeling: I hope that the Home Secretary, with the leave of the House, may do so, or failing that, that he will represent in the proper quarter that there is no reason for keeping the public any longer in suspense, if not about the actual date, at least as to whether the Election will be fought on the present register, which came into force last month, or on
  230
  that which comes into force on 15th March.
  4.42 p.m.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: Everybody will agree with the Government's proposal that, as far as possible, money should be saved, but if we agree that it is practicable to have a register only once a year, we need to satisfy ourselves that it is a good register and that no one is omitted from it. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned the difficulty of canvass work in the compilation of the register. Recently, all householders have been asked to submit details of people resident with them who are qualified to vote. No doubt this information is for the guidance of local registrars. I want to assure myself—and some of my friends in the country are equally anxious about this—that the register will be built up in such a way as to give the maximum opportunities for everyone's name to appear on it.
  Let me give an illustration. Suppose that somebody, having filled up a form a few months ago, imagines that it does not very much matter if he does not complete the more recently issued form. What action is taken by the office of the registrar to check returns in comparison with the existing register in order to include people who have omitted to complete the questionnaire? This may sound a somewhat mollycoddling attitude, but there will be many people who are under the impression that, because they have already completed one return, there is no real need for them to submit further details to their town hall.
  When the next register is being compiled, will there be some system or measures taken by registrars to see that everybody is included? If there is to be only one register annually, it is important that it should be the best possible register we can compile. We do not want people, to whatever party they belong, to awaken to the fact that when an Election comes along, whether it is in March or in June, they are not on the register. There are many simple people who may not take the precaution of completing their forms, and this is a point about which we ought to be satisfied.
  4.44 p.m.
  Mr. McKie: I support wholeheartedly what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr.

  231
  Keeling) regarding the necessity for having a little more enlightenment before this Debate ends upon the possible date of the Genera] Election. Whilst I express that hope, I am not at all sanguine that the Under-Secretary or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—whoever replies—will be in a position to give that information.
  I know from personal knowledge and observation what very great care and trouble have been taken, at any rate by registration officers in Scotland, in preparing the register which is to come into operation on 15th March. Only last Saturday I happened to be talking to one of the registration officers. He seemed a little disconsolate because he thought, owing to what has happened recently in the House, that the General Election might take place before the new register comes into operation. Quite naturally, he felt that a lot of his trouble and meticulous care might have been all in vain so far as the next appeal to the country is concerned. However, I am not very sanguine that anyone from the Government Front Bench will be in a position during this Debate to enlighten my hon. Friend or me on the date of the next Election.
  The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing)—who, I am sorry to say, has now left the Chamber—referred to the numbers of those of the younger generation who are about to attain the age of 21 and who may be left out of any future register. I congratulate the hon. Member on having applied his mind to that point and on his general arithmetic, but he and those who agree with him—no doubt some of those sitting behind the Government Front Bench agree with him—will also agree with me that in the compilation of any register there will always be a number of people who perforce must be omitted for some reason or other.
  The Home Secretary, in presenting the Bill, alluded to the 1945 Election and the register upon which that great and historic contest—we all agree upon that, whatever view we take about its lamentable results—was waged. I ventured to interject that it was a very imperfect register. The right hon. Gentleman, hearing my intervention, saw fit to say that he and I must both take joint responsibility for that because he was Home Secretary in the National
  232
  Government which was responsible for the compilation of that register. That was scarcely a good or fair debating point.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I have let the Debate go rather wide in respect of the speeches of every hon. Member who has spoken, but it does boil itself down to a question of whether we shall have one register or two. I think that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) was relevant in discussing the effect of the spread-over for one year. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) was just in Order, but only just.
  Mr. McKie: I did not wish to transgress, but was only replying to the point which was made by the Home Secretary, which I answer by saying that we all agree that the 1945 register—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not refer to that.
  Mr. McKie: You having ruled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I must not refer to that again, although the Home Secretary did so in his speech, I must leave it at that, and I must take it that the right hon. Gentleman was going rather wide of the argument in alluding to that at all.
  Having said that, I express the hope that the coming register will be much more perfect than the last one and that in consequence of the very meticulous care expended upon it very few people will be omitted. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) will be on the next register, for he was not on it in 1945.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member will now resume his seat. Mr. Skeffington-Lodge.
  Mr. McKie: On a point of Order. With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I sincerely hope that you will allow me to proceed with my speech, because you had not ruled me out of Order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member does not know what he is saying. Twice I have told him that he must not refer to the 1945 register, whether it is a good or a bad register. The third time he did so I asked him to resume his seat.
  Mr. McKie: I was going to make another point. May I not continue?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That must be quite final.
  4.50 p.m.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: The object of this Bill will find agreement on all sides of the House, but there is a difficulty in regard to the register of electors about which I should like my hon. Friend to say something. At present forms are sent to people at their different residences. I have had one at my residence in London and one in respect of my residence in Brighton. That means that if I filled in both I would appear on the register both in Kensington and in Brighton, and, unless I happened to know, as a great many people do not know, that the principle is one man, one vote—
  Mr. McKie: On a point of Order. With very great respect—and I hope, Sir, you will recognise that this is not in any way a transgression of the Rules of Order—may I say, Sir, that you never warned me, but asked me to resume my seat without a warning.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know what the hon. Member's argument is now. Does he always require warning three times before he obeys the Ruling of the Chair?
  Mr. McKie: I have been in this House many years, but have never heard an hon. Member requested to resume his seat before being warned by the Chair that if he persisted he would be asked to resume his seat.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is a very good precedent that I have set.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: These constant interruptions by the hon. Member opposite are a little trying if I am to develop my argument, and I hope he will do me the courtesy of keeping his seat during the rest of my remarks. If the principle of one man, one vote, is to be respected, some machinery ought to be devised whereby a person's name appears only on one register for one constituency. It would be possible as I have said for me to be on the register in Kensington and in Brighton and it would, therefore, be possible to cast a vote in both places. There are some people who have three residences and whose names therefore
  234
  will feature on the registers in three constituencies.
  This is an anomaly to obviate which I cannot suggest machinery, but it is something to which my hon. Friend should address himself. It might be possible for voters to be asked to take an oath that they have only voted once. There are people in the country who at all costs are determined to get rid of His Majesty's Government and for those people the arrangement I am describing would definitely present a very real temptation to break the law. I would not trust a good many of them not to take advantage of it.
  Mr. Peake: On a point of Order. May I have a Ruling as to whether this speech has any reference to the question of whether there should be two registers, or one register?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) is talking about the next register and the compilation of the autumn register. He is now asking that when the Committee stage is reached, some amendment should be made to the Bill as it now stands. That is a perfectly good Second Reading point.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Yes, Sir, I was trying to make the point that the new register which will be compiled under this Bill should be a good and proper register for the whole country and should not feature the names of people more than once. I have already stated that there are people who are anxious to take advantage of every opportunity of getting rid of the Government. I think they are most mistaken and stupid, but I feel that a temptation would be presented to them to do the wrong thing if they could get round the regulations as they so easily can in the way I name.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not bring in political bias here. This is purely a machinery Bill and he must keep to the point about the fairness of the register.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I am sorry. I think I have made the point and I should like my hon. Friend to address himself to it in his reply. I put a Question to the Home Secretary on this matter in the House the other day and he merely told me that the law would deal with people who did not put into practice the rule

  235
  of one man, one vote. It is all very well to say that, but there should be some means established whereby the law can if need be be enforced.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. Marlowe: I fully understand the question raised by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) of one vote in Kensington and one in Brighton. I can quite understand his sense of utter futility in using that vote in either place.
  I should like the Under-Secretary to explain a point in subsection (6) of Clause 1. That Clause, in effect, says that if the register has not been printed at the time an election takes place, the old register may be used, and if parts only of the new register have been printed, I understand that parts of the old register and parts of the new register might be used. Either of those contingencies seems utterly absurd. We could not possibly have an election in those circumstances. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell the House why this Clause is in the Bill and whether it is really necessary. I understand that it was in the 1948 Act. It is understandable that it should be in that Act, but is it really required now, or is the provision merely duplicated because it was in the 1948 Act? It seems to me that no one can contemplate contesting an election on a register in circumstances such as are envisaged by this subsection. The House would like to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say in explanation of that.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could also inform the House whether the subsection means that there is any doubt whether the register will be printed in due time. Unless there is any doubt, there is no sense in having the Clause. Will the hon. Gentleman say why the Clause appears and whether it does not convey even the risk that the register might not be printed at the proper time? As I have to go to a public meeting and must leave in order to catch a train, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous in any way if I am not here to hear his reply, for which I shall look in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  4.59 p.m.
  Mr. Awbery: It may be that a young man or woman reaches
  236
  the age of 21 on the day after the closing of the register, and this may mean that that young person will be unable to vote at a General Election for five years. I suggest that we should adopt some method of dealing with them. Under the Bill there is to be one register a year, but I suggest that consideration should be given to those young people and that the list should be laid open periodically—say every three or six months—for young men and women reaching the age of 21 to sign on a supplementary register, which could be used when a municipal or Parliamentary election takes place. I ask the Under-Secretary to give consideration to that point.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Drayson: I am in full agreement with the general purposes of the Bill to abolish the autumn register and to have one register in each year. I should, however, like to express the hope which has been expressed by other Members that this one register will be a good one. I apologise to the Home Secretary for not having heard the concluding remarks in his speech. I telephoned my constituency to get the latest figures of their electoral register for October, 1949. I found that in the register for October, 1948, there were 53,060 names, whereas in October this year the number is 51,042, a discrepancy of over 2,000 voters in a year. I am convinced that 2,000 people have not left my constituency during the past 12 months.
  I do not wish what I say to be regarded as any reflection on the electoral registration officer, whom I know personally. These officers are, in many cases, local government officials who have many other important duties to carry out, and whose staff is not always fully equipped to deal with this additional burden. The Government might well look into the question of whether some extra clerical assistance could not be forthcoming on these occasions.
  One of the reasons why the current register which we have is so deficient, is that it is compiled from Form A, which is sent out on the basis of the previous register. If a mistake occurred in the previous register, and it happened that perhaps a number of houses in a street and their occupants were completely omitted through a typographical error or

  237
  some other cause, those people will fail to receive Form A when that return has to be made for the March register. I know that there are provisions in the other Act whereby these errors can be put right by calls being made at the houses in question, but if those houses are not recorded on the previous register how can the persons who are employed to make the necessary calls know when an error is likely to arise? In rural districts, and I represent a vast rural area, it is impossible for these individuals to visit all the outlying farms, cottages and hamlets where the occupants may have failed to fill in Form A and return it.
  I wish the Government would look at this point because I am sure that many of the 2,000 names which are now missing from the electoral register of my constituency are those of people in the rural districts. Form A has just been sent out once again in connection with the March register, and I can imagine many people saying, "I filled in this form in the summer," thinking that the latest form has been sent to them on the mistaken assumption they failed to fill it in on the previous occasion. As they had sent it in on that occasion, however, they think that there is surely no need to bother further about it.
  I wish that it were possible to include in this Measure some tightening-up of the procedure. I believe that those who fail to fill in Form A and return it to the registration officer are liable to a fine. There might be some advantage in reversing the procedure and fining the registration officer for every individual he fails to put on his register, because the machinery is at his disposal and it is up to him to see that his canvassers go round and do the job thoroughly.
  There does not appear to be any real check on this system. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) desired checks to be applied as he felt that members of his party might, in their unbounded enthusiasm, be tempted to vote in more than one place at the election. I am sure that they will resist his highly improper suggestion. I ask the Government to look at this matter and see if they cannot achieve a system whereby we have greater accuracy in this new register which is to be compiled in March.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Hurd: I wish to deal with one small point which is worrying some of my constituents, and which will have particular force now that we are to have one register annually instead of two. A few names have, by reason of printers' errors, been omitted from the new register which is now in force. The canvass was correct, the names went correctly into the registration office, but owing to printers' errors these electors do not now appear on the list. That is causing some concern and of course disappointment to those persons. I ask the Home Secretary, if he is considering the preparation of any kind of supplementary register, to take account of those who reach the age of 21 just after the compilation of the register, etc.; also to arrange for the inclusion in that supplementary register any bona fide mechanical slip which is not the fault of the elector or the canvassers.
  5.6 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): Every one on all sides of the House has accepted the principle of this Bill albeit no doubt with reluctance. We all appreciate that if the expense and work involved had not to be considered it would be better to have, as we decided in the 1948 discussions, two registers a year. No one has disputed that the proposal in this Bill is a reasonable form of economy. Some of the Rulings on Order which you have given, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, indicate that this is indeed a Bill with a narrow purpose. It is intended only to provide for the change from two registers per year to one and for any detailed consequential Amendments.
  Most of the points which have been raised by hon. Members on all sides have been essentially Committee points, although I am bound to say that my right hon. Friend might be somewhat reluctant to look with a kindly eye upon some of them, even if they are proposed at a later stage, because it would not be appropriate, so soon after the passage of the major Act, to enter into a series of minor matters of electoral administration many of which were considered at that time.
  I shall begin by answering first the question asked by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) about the

  239
  saving which, is anticipated. The figure of £800,000 which has been given covers both the local and the central expenditure; it is the total saving which is anticipated.
  Mr. Peake: Is that divided equally?
  Mr. Younger: Yes, 50-50.
  The second point which the right hon. Gentleman raised was whether it would not be better to include a Clause putting this Bill on a temporary basis. That is a matter which can be considered, but in thinking this matter over and after experiencing the administrative difficulties since the major Bill was passed, my right hon. Friend feels that the drain on manpower which is caused by making two registers a year is considerable. Moreover, my right hon. Friend called attention in his remarks to the postal voting arrangements, which make it perhaps rather less important—I would not put it higher than that—that there should be two registers than it might previously have been. At the moment I do not think that my right hon. Friend is inclined to favour the possibility of putting this Bill in a temporary form.
  Nearly all the other points were concerned with the anxieties of hon. Members that this register should be as good as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies) asked what sort of checking is done by registration officers and their staffs if they have received the first preliminary forms to which reference has been made. I am informed they do a great deal of checking by canvasses, particularly where a return has not been received from an address where persons have previously been registered or where there have been changes in the register. How much checking they can do must be a matter for the discretion of registration officers. They can only do what the extent of their staff permits them to do. No doubt the matter is not quite uniformly dealt with throughout the country, but I am assured that every possible step is taken to check up on the particulars given in these forms.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Mr. Awbery) both raised questions relating to
  240
  young persons becoming 21 after the qualifying date. The House may remember that when the Committee on Electoral Registration considered the whole of this matter it did, among other things, consider whether it was possible to find some method of keeping the register up to date from week to week or month to month as an alternative to having a revision once or twice a year. Reasons were set out in the report showing that administratively there was a good deal of difficulty, and because they were unable to devise machinery of that kind they recommended a register every six months. I am afraid that many of those administrative objections apply to the sort of suggestions put forward by my hon. Friends.
  The objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) that persons should not be registered as residents at more than one address is not a new matter arising out of the proposal that there should be one register instead of two. It is not connected with any particular feature of this Bill. It raises considerable administrative difficulties, particularly as regards enforcement, when one considers that if a particular person's name is put down in more than one place it may not always be that person who fills in all the forms. Therefore that makes it exceedingly difficult to check.
  The only other point to which I was asked to reply was that raised by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) who asked about Clause 1, subsection (6) which provides against the possibility that there might be some part of the register not published on the necessary date. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member will agree that it is necessary in drafting a Bill to make provision for every eventuality. It is unlikely that a date would be so chosen for an election as to make this provision necessary, but if in fact it did occur that the printing of a particular part of the register was late it might happen that an election was taking place. I think it is right that there should be some machinery in the Bill for dealing with such a situation, though I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that one would hope such a contingency would never arise. One certainly does not anticipate that the printing of these registers generally will be in arrears. But I think that the recent register was

  241
  at any rate in some areas, some days late. and one has to provide against that sort of contingency. That explains why it was put in, and it is, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, no more than repetition of what has been in previous Acts, including the 1948 Act.
  Mr. Keeling: Did we corectly understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the saving of £800,000 which will flow from this Bill is only half a saving to the Exchequer and the other half a saving to the rates? If so, why were we told by the Prime Minister when he announced this cut that there would be a saving of £800,000 to the Exchequer?
  Mr. Younger: I cannot say without notice precisely what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did say in that respect. I was asked a question to which I have given an accurate answer. Without looking it up, I cannot accept what was said on a previous occasion.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBT]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of unpaid balances of principal due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of loans to Braintree Co-operative Homes. Ltd., Murcot Co-operative (Housing) Society Ltd. and George Thomas Willows."

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment: read the Third time, and passed.
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment: read the Third time, and passed without Amendment.
  MARRIAGE BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment: read the Third time, and passed without Amendment.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

  ARMED FORTIES (HOUSING LOANS)
  5.21 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move:
  That it is expedient—
  (a) to authorise the Treasury, during the five years ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, to issue out of the Consolidated Fund sums not exceeding in the aggregate forty million pounds, to be applied as appropriations in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for those years for the provision of approved housing accommodation in Great Britain for married persons serving in, or employed in connection with, the armed forces of the Crown, being accommodation the cost of the provision of which would otherwise fall to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament for the defence services:
  Provided that the amounts so issued for any year to defray Navy, Army or Air Force expenditure in respect of the provision of approved housing accommodation in Great Britain for persons serving in, or employed in connection with, the Royal Navy or Royal Marines, the Army or the Air Force, as the case may be, shall not at any date exceed the aggregate of the amounts proposed to be so issued to defray that expenditure by the estimates upon which this House has, before that date, resolved to grant sums to His Majesty to defray that expenditure for that year;
  (b) to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing sums (or any part of sums) to be issued as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, or of providing for the replacement of all or any part of sums so issued, to raise money in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, and to provide that any securities created and issued accordingly shall be deemed for all purposes to have been created and issued under that Act;
  (c) to provide for the repayment to the Exchequer, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the defence services, of the sums issued as aforesaid, together with interest thereon;
  (d) to provide for the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer under the last foregoing paragraph and the application of sums so issued in redemption or repayment of debt, or, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.
  For the purpose of this Resolution the expression "approved" means approved by the Treasury, and the expression "the defence services" means the Navy, Army and Air services.

  243
  The Minister of Defence had intended to move this Motion but he has not yet arrived. The Motion authorises the Treasury, during the five years ending on 31st March, 1955, to issue out of the Consolidated Fund sums not exceeding in the aggregate £40 million to be applied as appropriations in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for the provision of approved housing accommodation in Great Britain for married people serving in, or employed in connection with, the Armed Forces of the Crown. As is indicated, the word "approved" means approved by the Treasury.
  The Motion fixes the maximum sum that can be applied. This provision applies only to Great Britain and not to Northern Ireland. The appropriations in aid will go towards the original Estimates or any Supplementary Estimates which may be agreed to by this Committee. There is a proviso to the first paragraph to the effect that no borrowed money can be spent on married quarters in any year until Parliament has approved the Estimates for that year. It is proposed to have in the Estimates for each of the three Defence Services a separate new Vote under which will be shown both the gross expenditure proposed and the loan moneys to be appropriated in aid of that expenditure.
  Married quarters in Great Britain which constitute especial Service requirements and are not regarded as being available to serve the general housing needs of the community, will continue to be financed in the ordinary way from Votes, as of course will any housing accommodation which falls to be provided for Forces of the Crown that happen to be abroad. The other parts of the Motion are in what is called common form. Paragraph (b) authorises the Treasury, for the purpose of providing sums to be issued as mentioned earlier, or for providing for the replacement of all or any part of sums so issued, to raise money in any manner in which money is authorised to be raised under the National Loans Act, 1939.
  This proposal is one which has already received approval in all quarters of the Committee. I have here details of a number of Questions asked over a period by Members of all parties who have realised the great need for providing
  244
  proper housing accommodation both for officers and men now serving in the Forces and for those who may be attracted to serve if quarters are provided. The suggestion put forward by the Minister of Defence is, I think, one which will commend itself to Members in all parts of the Committee. This is a nonparty issue and I commend this Motion most heartily
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think that we ought to have rather more information from the Minister of Defence. This appears to be a harmless sort of Motion, but I have some doubts which I hope the Minister will clear up. I want to know why this legislation is necessary. Is it not an attempt to camouflage our expenditure on Defence? Is not one of the reasons behind this Motion the fact that now, after many protests, we have come to regard the Minister of Defence as the most profligate, spendthrift and extravagant Minister we have?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The comments of the hon. Member are not relevant to the Question. This Motion relates to the provision of married quarters for members of the Armed Forces. The hon. Gentleman must not go anything like as wide as that. He is quite out of Order.
  Mr. Hughes: That, Mr. Bowles, was a sort of preliminary exploration.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the subsequent remarks of the hon. Member will be more in Order than his preliminary remarks.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes. Now I understand exactly where I stand. I suggest that the Committee should know whether this is an attempt to give an impression that reductions are being made in the Defence Estimates. As I understand the position, this will mean that expenditure will now be put to the account of the Consolidated Fund when, otherwise, it would have been borne on the Defence Estimates. That will give the impression that the Estimates have been reduced. In fact, the position will have been camouflaged. I ask the Minister to assure us that this is not a piece of financial jugglery similar, in a way, to the famous raid on the Road Fund. I want to be sure that this is justified from the point of view of sound business.

  245
  It seems to me to be very suspicious that this Resolution comes along as a sort of reaction to the economy campaign. I want to know exactly what is going to happen if we adopt this kind of finance. It seems to me that this time we are to some extent taking away housing and putting it on a different account, and that if the same procedure were adopted in regard to other items of military defence expenditure, for example, where we have an ambulance service and a service of doctors, we could transfer them to the Ministry of Health Vote. Where we have certain items such as coal and electricity, what is to prevent the Minister, if we pass this proposal, discovering next year that this device had been so successful that the coal and electricity required by the Army were to be borne on the Vote of the Ministry of Fuel and Power? In that case, the Minister of Defence would come along as a Minister who, on paper at any rate, appeared to have made considerable economies but in fact had not done so.
  We have had various reasons given for this Resolution, and what I want to know is whether, in the campaign for increased housing, we are to regard the Minister of Defence as an ally or as an enemy. I hope we are going to regard him as coming along with the greatest enthusiasm to build houses, not only for the troops, but for other sections of the population as well. Here I want to submit to the Minister certain difficulties that arise. We heard the Minister make the case, when the Resolution was introduced, that it was necessary in the interests of morale. I should like to have a categorical assurance from the Minister that he is not forgetting the morale of other people who are also interested in defence. For example, I ask the Minister of Defence whether he is interested in the economy of the country when he is proposing to take away building labour in order to build these married quarters for the soldiers? If he were building houses, say, for miners, he would be doing something which indirectly would help the morale of the nation, but actually what he proposes to do will reduce it.
  I want to ask the Minister one or two questions about Scotland, of which I gave notice on the Order Paper. Those questions I withdrew because I understood that the Minister was going to deal with the matter in the Debate this after-
  246
  noon. What help can we expect from him in trying to get the necessary labour force to build these married quarters in Scotland? I am not opposed to building married quarters for any section of the community which needs them. I quite agree that, if the Minister calls up sailors, soldiers and airmen, it becomes his primary duty to have them decently housed. When we assume that that is the Minister's duty, I ask him what steps he is taking to see that there is in Scotland a proper labour force to build the married quarters required there? Is he satisfied that in Scotland at the present time there are all kinds of building workers—plasterers, joiners and bricklayers—sufficient enough for this work without encroaching on the needs of the civil population?
  Here, I submit, there is a mystery which the Minister did not elucidate in his statement today. We have been given to understand that there is to be a speed-up in the building of married quarters, and that, at the same time, there is to be no depletion of the ranks of building workers who are building houses for miners, agricultural workers and other sections of the community. In Scotland we are up against a very difficult task in ensuring that this labour force is there, and I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to consider this proposition. At the present time, he is calling up apprentices in the building trades as soon as they complete their apprenticeship, when they are handed over to the Defence Forces. What becomes of them? Are they being used to any extent in building married quarters for the Army, Navy and Air Force, or is the Minister just calling up people haphazard, including good bricklayers, plasterers and joiners, and in the Armed Forces turning them into cooks?
  Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. I understand that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is now dealing with the method of calling up people for the Army, and I also understand that this Ways and Means Resolution relates purely to the erection of houses by civilian labour. How, therefore, can the calling up of people for the Army affect that?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who started by asking what the Minister was

  247
  going to do about the building of married quarters. He is confining himself to Scotland, as he is quite entitled to do, and he is suggesting that the calling up of people for the Forces may affect the building of houses in Scotland. I think he is quite in Order in that respect.
  Mr. Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Bowles; I am considerably relieved.
  Earl Winterton: I think this Resolution provides for houses being built by civilian labour. It does not provide for houses being built by military labour.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I may be wrong, but, as I understand it, we are proposing to spend £40 million on married quarters for the Forces. The hon. Gentleman has, so far, confined himself to Scotland, and he is saying that in Scotland there is a threat of a serious shortage of building operatives. He is asking how the Minister will get the married quarters when, by calling men into the Forces, it may well be that there is less building labour available for building them. I think that is quite in Order.
  Mr. Hughes: I have never heard my case put so admirably. From now on, Mr. Bowles, my respect for the Chair is greater than ever. I think the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) will now understand what I am driving at. I submit that at the end of my speech he will come forward as an ally in an attempt to get something satisfactory from the Minister of Defence. The noble Lord and I start from the same assumption—that, if the Minister of Defence is calling up airmen and soldiers, he must be careful that they are decently housed. We both start from that assumption, and I believe that the noble Lord and I agree that this should be as expeditious as possible.
  The first question which I directed to the Minister was whether he was satisfied with regard to the labour and materials for the building of married quarters for the Armed Forces. Can these married quarters for the Armed Forces be obtained without encroaching on the urgent needs of the civilian population? I want to argue that that matter needs to be cleared up so far as Scotland is concerned. I suggest that, if
  248
  the Minister of Defence is to spend £40 million, he must have a very big programme in mind. He wants to see these new houses built so as to increase the morale of the people who go into the Armed Forces. I want to know how they will be built, because the noble Lord seems to think that they will be built by military labour. Is that so?
  If they are not to be built by military labour, then they have to be built by trained building workers, and, if the Minister is to make a success of his programme, I suggest to him that he should leave in the building industry the bricklayers, plasterers and joiners who will be needed to carry out that programme. The Minister in charge of housing in Scotland is already very much alarmed at the way the building labour force is being steadily depleted. I want to quote to the Minister of Defence the statement by the Under-Secretary of State, responsible for building in Scotland, at a recent meeting at Clydebank. He said:
  "I am now more than a little concerned—I am alarmed at the rather low rate of completions during the past month or two. Last year it was a record year for the building industry and it produced "—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must not go into too much detail on this. He can go into the fact that he alleges that there is a shortage of building labour in Scotland, but he cannot go into details like this.
  Mr. Hughes: The last time I ventured to make a quotation, the Minister told me to go on quoting.
  The Deputy-Chairman: In this Debate I am telling the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hughes: The two Ministers were engaged on the same task except that this Minister wants to increase the number of married quarters for the Defence Forces and the other Minister was interested in increasing the building force in the interests of the civilian population. To put it shortly, the Minister then said that there was an alarming drop in the number of building workers in Scotland. I have tried to get the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Defence to call a halt to this utterly ridiculous and uneconomic procedure of calling up building workers and putting them to jobs in which they are not trained.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot argue an alteration in the law. It would require legislation to exempt people from call-up. Therefore, the hon. Member should confine himself, as he was doing before, to getting an answer to the question which he put to the Minister. He should not argue the case that conscription should not apply to certain civilian workers. The only question before the Committee at the moment is whether £40 million should be provided by Parliament for the building of married quarters for members of the Armed Forces.
  Mr. Hughes: Precisely, Sir, but I want to know whether the Minister of Defence contemplates introducing new legislation or amending the old legislation in order to ensure getting the necessary labour force. The point I wish to impress upon him is that he will not get the houses he needs if he is going to sit idly by while people competent to build are put on other jobs in the Forces.
  The Minister intimated in the statement which he made earlier today that when these houses were completed, they would be at the disposal of the civilian population. I should like to know whether it is going to work the other way about. In some parts of the country the Ministry of Defence have had housing accommodation in camps at their disposal which is now lying derelict. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the accommodation not required for the Armed Forces in different parts of the country is to be used for housing the civilian population. I should also like to ask what expenditure is to be made on each house. I ask that, because we in Scotland are being asked to accept a reduced standard in housing. Are not these married Service men entitled to decent houses, or will they have to submit to the new regulations which I understand are to affect the civilian population?
  Are the houses to be two, three or four-apartment houses? I submit that if we are to build two and three-apartment houses for officers in the Services, we shall have the same overcrowded conditions perpetuated in Service life. Are we not entitled to know the estimated cost per house? Are we to have brigadiers and their families put into two-apartment houses? If we are not going to put
  250
  brigadiers into two-apartment houses, then we shall have to revise our ideas about the civilian population.
  I have no doubt that other hon. Members are beginning to wonder how the Minister will solve this problem, and I hope he will attempt to give us some satisfactory answers to these questions. How is he going to build these married quarters if he has not a sufficient building force? Will he give an assurance that building workers will not be taken away from the urgent and pressing needs of the civilian population?
  5.46 p.m.
  General Sir George Jeffreys: I welcome this Motion and the prospect of a Bill to give effect to the authorisation to borrow for the building of married quarters. The problem of how quarters are to be provided for their married people is no new problem for commanders in the Army, although it has certainly been very much accentuated in these latter days by the largely increased numbers of married personnel compared with the numbers in the past. It is further accentuated by the frequent changes of stations which fall to the lot of present-day units and individuals.
  It is by no means unusual for a married soldier to be moved at short notice from a station in which he has only just settled down with his family to another station, perhaps a hutment camp, where there are no married quarters close by and where, if accommodation is available at all, it may possibly be many miles distant from the camp or hutments, as the case may be. I heard quite recently of a certain camp in the North of England—it was a hutment camp constructed during the war—where there were practically no married quarters at all. The married people in that camp—a considerable number—had to be brought in by lorry or bus from a town no less than 20 miles distant and taken back in the same way in the evening.
  I need not stress the immense importance of providing married quarters in the close vicinity of the barracks or camps where the married soldiers are serving. I would particularly stress the importance of such quarters for those—usually officers, senior warrant officers, and non-commissioned officers or their equivalent ranks in the Navy—who have responsible duties to perform which keep

  251
  them for long and sometimes irregular hours in camps or barracks. There was always difficulty in the past in getting buildings authorised, not only for married soldiers, but for all kinds of purposes when they had to be included in the annual Estimates of revenue expenditure. Buildings were always the first things to be cut. Whenever there was a shortage of money—and there nearly always was when it came to the point, as I am sure the Minister will know even better than I—the first things that had to go were the buildings. Sometimes items of building used to appear as projected year by year with the utmost regularity, and year by year they were put back because the money necessary for their erection was not available. I am afraid that when it came to the question of Revenue expenditure buildings were generally put low on the list.
  Under the present Motion, and the Bill that is to follow it, whereby money is to be borrowed for the provision of married quarters, it seems to me that there is a real prospect of an appreciable number of these quarters being erected where they are wanted. A large number of married quarters have been, so to speak, put out of action by the old barracks which they adjoined, or of which they formed part, being practically disused in modern circumstances, mobile units having been put in camps which have no married quarters and very few other amenities.
  I think the real problem of getting the quarters that we want looks like being solved and that we will be getting them by legitimate means. In the past to my personal knowledge, on some occasions—I do not say it was done on a large scale—various devices were used to ensure that buildings should be definitely begun. I know of actual cases—I can think of one in particular—in which the commander concerned employed the device of getting the foundations dug. There was a little money which enabled him, largely with military labour, to get the foundations dug for a very considerable building, which had again and again been put back low in the list of priorities. By digging the foundations it became a "continuation service," as the expression was, and it had to go on. That is the sort of device which I think was justifiable from the point of view of the com-
  252
  manders themselves, but it is far better that provision should be made for necessary building and for borrowing all the money necessary for the erection of the buildings. I only hope that no means will be found of scaling down the provision of money for buildings which are most urgently necessary for all the Services to my certain knowledge.
  5.53 p.m.
  Dr. Haden Guest: As the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) has said, the Committee should welcome this Motion providing for married quarters.' It is one of the really urgent things which require to be done in order to give some reasonable basis of stability and sense of being really looked after, to those in the Forces who are married and who require married quarters. I do not think many hon. Members can know of the extraordinarily antiquated almost archaeological curiosities which still exist. May I mention that I was actually asked when attached to Eastern Command, to certify as fit for human habitation at Eastern Command headquarters, buildings which date back to the Crimean War?
  Mr. Willis: We have got some in Scotland which date back to the Rebellion.
  Dr. Guest: That is the more reason why Scottish Members should shake off their prejudices and be anxious to get on with the provision of decent housing and decent married quarters. I was obliged to condemn those quarters as being quite unfit for human habitation.
  I do not propose to deal with the arguments of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) against the building of married quarters. I would only say this. The married members of the Armed Forces are just as much entitled to the provision of houses as any other members of the community, and at the present time they have considerably less accommodation of this nature. It is always the case in London and in every large city that there are certain priorities with regard to housing. There have to be priorities. One of those priorities is to provide housing for the families of those in the Armed Forces.
  Let me say, as must be quite obvious to every hon. Member, including, I hope, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, that if people in the Forces who are married

  253
  are given quarters adjacent to the places where they are working—and incidentally they should be not only adjacent to the stations to which they are attached but also reasonably adjacent to town and shopping facilities and so forth—the difficulties of housing will be relieved in a good many towns. I do not know whether the hon. Member for South Ayrshire finds that people who belong to the Armed Forces are competing for accommodation with the ordinary civilian population in his Division, but that certainly is the case in London to a very considerable extent. It would be a great relief to many housing authorities if this difficulty with regard to the provision of housing for the Armed Forces were met in this way.
  What the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield said about transport is correct. I recently had the opportunity to visit a considerable number of the areas in this country where troops are employed, and in some of those places the men have had to be brought in for considerable distances because of the lack of housing. It is obvious that if transport is employed, time and money is wasted unnecessarily and the Estimates are inflated, which I am sure the hon. Member for South Ayrshire does not wish.
  It seems to me that to oppose this Motion is not only unnecessary but almost ridiculous. We have an Army, a Navy and an Air Force, and we must have them. Most of us support the maintenance of those Forces, and it is absolutely essential that the married personnel in them should have that decent accommodation which every human being ought to have. I am sure that even the hon. Member for South Ayrshire will agree that those in the Armed Forces are human beings, and deserve ordinary human treatment. I suggest that these frivolous suggestions of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire are directed, not towards helping to solve the housing difficulty but merely towards damaging the possibilities of our maintaining Armed Forces at all, because of his well-known pacifist convictions. He would like to see us without any Army, Navy or Air Force, in order, perhaps, that we may be open to visits from some of his friends from elsewhere.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask the hon. Member to explain exactly what he means by my friends elsewhere?
  Dr. Guest: I mean people from abroad with whom, I presume, the hon. Member is in contact, and who might desire to come in and invade this country.
  Mr. Hughes: Who does the hon. Member mean?
  Dr. Guest: I leave that to the hon. Gentleman's own intelligence.
  Mr. Willis: On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) of being in contact with friends abroad who are anxious to invade this country?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I must say that I did not hear the hon. Member say that. I was reading something. I think it had better not be repeated.
  Dr. Guest: I will not repeat that. I must confess that I was only talking about ideological contact, and nothing else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I mean that quite seriously. I suggest that we should not allow ourselves to be side-tracked by any propaganda of that kind against what is an essential and necessary duty of the country to provide proper married quarters. I believe that the Committee will feel that the provision of married quarters is very desirable, that it ought to have been done many years ago, and that it will create the very greatest possible benefit not only in the Forces but among the civilian population, because we shall be accommodating individuals who otherwise would have to be provided for in competition with the very urgent and severe housing needs of many civilians. I strongly support this Motion.
  6.0 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: Because I wanted to listen to some of the Debate, I did not avail myself of the custom—of course, it is only a -custom and not a Rule—'that a Member of this Front Bench should speak after the Minister has spoken. I think there is nothing between the Government and ourselves on this Resolution. I was immensely amused and intensely pleased to see that there was a difference of opinion between an hon. Member opposite—the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest)—and some of his hon. Friends, who adopted the attitude towards him which they usually adopt towards me. It is

  255
  always interesting for members of my party to see that state of affairs. I am not surprised at it, because the Socialist Party has always consisted of two sections, one patriotic, like the hon. Member for North Islington, and one, shall we say; less interested in defence matters.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The noble Lord had better leave that point.
  Earl Winterton: I presume I can make a reference to this. May I put a point of Order? Is that permitted?
  The Deputy-Chairman: Yes.
  Earl Winterton: I presume I may make a reference to what has been said by the hon. Member for North Islington. I understand you are suggesting, Mr. Bowles, that I am not allowed to comment on it.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The noble Lord knows what he said. I ordered the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) not to continue talking in the same way as that in which he was talking. The noble Lord is referring to some members of the Labour Party being patriotic and some not. That is a quite long way from the Resolution which we are discussing. The noble Lord has made his statement: he must not go on with it.
  Earl Winterton: Is it not in Order, on an occasion like this, to refer to the attitude of hon. Members as being that some are in favour of the Resolution, because they are in favour of the defence of the country, and some are not in favour of it?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think that might be in Order, but the noble Lord should not refer at all to an hon. Member as being unpatriotic.
  Earl Winterton: I intend to persist in my point of Order, as I am perfectly entitled to do. The Deputy-Chairman says I was out of Order. I am asking for your guidance, Mr. Bowles, so that I may make my speech without being out of Order, and I ask whether it would be in Order to refer to the fact that some hon. Members are more in favour of the defence of this country than others.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That would be in Order, but it would not be in Order
  256
  to refer to any hon. Member as being unpatriotic. I think that would be an unparliamentary word.
  Earl Winterton: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Bowles. I will, therefore, alter the form of my sentence and say that it is interesting to me to observe, not for the first time, that some hon. Members are more in favour of this Defence Estimate than are others because they are more in favour of the defence of the country than are others. If that is out of Order, I hope you will tell me so, Mr. Bowles.
  Having got over that slight difficulty, which arose from the last speech, and, I hope, having now satisfied you, Mr. Bowles, that I am most anxious to keep in Order—and I hope I shall do nothing else to cause you inconvenience by causing you to have to call attention to the fact that I am out of Order—perhaps I may say a few more words about this Resolution. I hope this will be in Order; I am rather diffident now about saying anything about anything.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The noble Lord is going a little too far. He is implying a reflection on the Chair in almost every aside he utters. I hope he will confine himself to the Resolution.
  Earl Winterton: I hope I may be permitted to say I am rather diffident about saying anything, because it is obviously a very narrow Resolution. Is that out of Order?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The noble Lord has had the benefit of having been here much longer than anybody else and surely he knows better than anyone what is out of Order. He should know how to address the Chair more respectfully. In his comments on whether anything is out of Order or not and the comment that he is diffident about saying anything, he is being slightly unpleasant to the Chair.
  Earl Winterton: What I intended to imply, Mr. Bowles, is that this is a comparatively narrow Resolution. May I raise this point of Order? May I say that I am sure you will agree, Mr. Bowles, that it is always in Order to ask whether it would be in Order to pursue a certain line?
  The Deputy-Chairman: It is also a hypothetical question, and, therefore, I will decide it when it occurs.
  Mr. Carmichael: May I have your advice, Mr. Bowles, as to whether we are discussing a Resolution about housing for the Armed Forces or what is the Resolution because, with all his long experience, the noble Lord has still to begin his speech on married quarters.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The noble Lord has himself said that he realises it is a narrow subject and he was then about to confine himself to it.
  Earl Winterton: I hope I shall say nothing to offend anyone now that I turn to the Resolution. After all these unfortunate events, I feel quite timid. However, we are very near to the end of this Parliament.
  Mr. Harrison: On a point of Order. Do you think, Mr. Bowles, that the comments repeatedly being made by the noble Lord are not casting a definite reflection on the Chair itself?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I have already dealt with that matter, within the hearing of the hon. Member. I think the noble Lord had better continue with his speech.
  Earl Winterton: As the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) said, it is a question of lack of experience, on whose part I do not know.
  The points I want to make are these. In the first place, while we on this side of the House are in agreement with the Government in bringing this Resolution forward, we suggest that it would have been better had it been brought forward earlier. There might be a perfectly proper reply to that and I should not object to its being made. I must ask why housing is in the state in which it is today. I think the Minister of Defence will agree with these considerations which I venture to present—through you, Mr. Bowles—on the subject of the state housing is in at the present time.
  I think it is due to three main reasons, as I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) pointed out in his speech. First, as a result of the war, a great many married quarters which hitherto had been in good order have fallen into disrepair. I always try to be fair however, and I remember that on the last occasion I
  258
  spoke, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was good enough, as I very much appreciated, to pay tribute to the sincerity with which I put forward my views. I quite agree that between the wars there was not enough attention given to this question of housing, for the very reasons mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. As was said by the Under-Secretary in his opening speech, it was extremely difficult in those days to get money for housing, because in any Defence Estimate that was the first thing to be cut. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under the Tories "]—From time immemorial. It has been extremely difficult for the Defence Departments to obtain money for such necessary things as housing, because they have been cut out by the Treasury.
  There are other reasons which have not been mentioned, and which I think should be mentioned when considering this Resolution, which made the position very much worse than it was before the war. First, I think I am right in saying—and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that there are something like 200,000 more men in the Armed Forces than there were. I think there are 100,000 more in the Army.
  The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): More.
  Earl Winterton: Secondly, a very much larger proportion, particularly of the Army and I think of the Forces generally, are married. A point constantly made by two of my hon. and gallant Friends is that good housing is a first priority in order to obtain a sufficiency of recruits. From that point of view we are, therefore, extremely pleased that at long last—and I think it is at long last—the Government have accepted the views which we have put forward and I hope, so far as the other side are concerned, accepted them almost unanimously.
  There are only three other questions I want to ask. I do not know whether it is in Order to deal with this point at length, but I hope it will be in Order to ask a question on it. As I understand it, these proposals do not apply to the provision of married quarters overseas, as that is to continue to be regarded as a defence commitment rather than as a contribution to the general housing programme. Now, I do not know how far

  259
  it is in Order to suggest that the form of the Motion should be altered, but I think I should have the assent of my hon. Friends behind me in saying that it is as important to improve the housing of the men overseas in camps—for example, the Suez camp—as to improve the housing of the men in this country.
  Mr. Alexander: May I make that point clear, as it will save time, perhaps. Of course, we are anxious to bring this arrangement on to exactly the same basis of housing as that provided for ordinary citizens in this country, and we propose to provide the housing to that extent by loan. We should not have the arrangements extended—the Treasury will check it—to houses erected in such places that they would form a part of defence works, and might not be of value permanently as part of the housing accommodation of the country. The same view is taken about housing abroad. We shall not cease to go on providing housing abroad, but it will be part of the defence works to be provided and will come out of the annual defence expenditure.
  Earl Winterton: That does not really meet the point I was putting, although I am obliged to the Minister of Defence for answering so clearly. This, of course, comes exactly within the category of what I have been saying, that in the past—and this is not a party question, but a point which, I think, will be generally agreed—all the Ministers responsible for the Defence Services have had the greatest difficulty in getting houses provided, so to speak, through the Treasury, because the Treasury has always come along and said, "You will have to cut your Estimates. You have got a lot of things down which are not immediately necessary from the defence point of view. Cut your housing." That is why, in the past, housing has been so shamefully neglected in the Services. If it is not possible for me to suggest altering the Motion, I must say that, personally, I should very much like to see the existing housing position of our men overseas improved. For instance, the housing accommodation in the Suez Canal zone is really calamitous, and there are many other instances, and yet our establishment at Suez is more or less permanent.
  The second point I want to make is this. I will put it very shortly, and I
  260
  am sorry to keep the Committee so long. I would press for an assurance that the provision of a Ministry of Health certificate, before one can borrow, that the married quarters to be built would be suitable for civilian houses when no longer required for the Forces, should not be interpreted too strictly. I think that is important, because as it seems to me—I may be quite wrong, and I am open to correction by the Minister—the effect of a literal interpretation upon the rules might mean that the extension of married quarters at camps such as Bordon might not rank for borrowing, because they would not be suitable for civilian housing, and because it might be argued that evacuation of barracks would not make it possible to permit civilian tenancy of any such unoccupied Service quarters because they were in a garrison area. I hope that that is a point which the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer. I think it is a point worth consideration.
  My last point is this, and ca va sans dire. I apologise for my pronunciation. I must be very careful in what I say lest I say anything that is out of Order, but I think a French quotation is in Order. I hope ca va sans dire that it used to be in Order. I hope it goes without saying—if I may say so, so that there may be no question that I am out of Order—that in what I am going to say it goes without saying that married quarters will be provided for officers as well as N.C.O.s, because today—if anybody wanted to make the point, which, I am sure, nobody would—the old argument that officers were in a privileged position no longer applies, because today very many of the officers have to go through the ranks, and a number of young officers who are married are married on very small salaries indeed.
  Those are the points I wanted to put. May I say, in conclusion, how successful I have been since you, Mr. Diamond, have been in the Chair?
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Swingler: I shall be very brief, and I certainly shall not be bellicose in what I say, because I wish to show more respect for the Chair than the previous speaker the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I hope that the children will not follow the so-called Father of the House—
  Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Is it really in Order for the hon. Gentleman to say I have not shown respect for the Chair? The Deputy-Chairman did not say I had not shown respect for the Chair, but that I should not persist in my points of Order.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond): It is the duty of the Chair to draw the attention of any Member to the fact that he is out of Order if and when he is out of Order.
  Mr. Swingler: I am not sure, Mr. Diamond, whether you were here when the previous incidents occurred. I think that perhaps some of us on the back benches hear a bit more than is always heard in the Chair, but I certainly think that at the beginning of the speech of the noble Lord we saw a rather disgraceful exhibition—
  Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. What on earth has this to do with the Motion? The hon. Member has just said that he saw a disgraceful exhibition. The Deputy-Chairman interrupted me on a matter of Order when I was referring to something that had occurred on the benches opposite which was out of Order—and now the hon. Gentleman is doing exactly the same thing as that which was out of Order.
  Mr. Swingler: Further to that point of Order. Am I not entitled to my quota of points of Order as is the noble Lord?
  The Temporary Chairman: I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would address himself to the Motion before the Committee.
  Mr. Swingler: I just want to say that I welcome this Motion for the reason that it is a step in the direction of improving the housing of the families of the Armed Forces, and putting it on the same basis as that of the civil population. I think that is an excellent thing. It is wrong that we should consider the provision of married quarters for the families of the soldiers, sailors and airmen on any other basis of priorities or anything else than that on which we consider the question of housing the families of the country. I understand quite well the concern shown earlier on by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I think he has come in on the wrong Debate or the wrong Motion, and that
  262
  what he is really objecting to is not this Motion but something else. I know what he is concerned about.
  Nobody could object to this Motion if only because it will be a contribution to the solution of the housing problem of the civil population. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I can vouch for the fact that the progress of the building of married quarters for the Royal Air Force in my own constituency has made some contribution towards solving the housing problem there. The more married quarters are built for the families of the Armed Forces the more, obviously, that will lessen the requirements and the length of the housing lists which confront the local authorities. So any step which puts the building of houses for the Armed Forces on exactly the same basis of need and priority as that of the houses for the civil population is a good thing, because the Armed Forces are composed of citizens in uniform who are entitled to the same services.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: The previous Government business has been disposed of very speedily, so perhaps the Committee can spare a moment or two to examine this Resolution, if only to show universal appreciation of its necessity. The Financial Secretary is adept at persuading the Committee to vote money; he does it charmingly and pleasantly, and he has had a good deal of practice at it under this Government. This, of all the Resolutions he has had to propose, is one with which no section of the Committee can possibly find fault, and it is a very sad thing that on this issue such a childish background should have developed to the Debate. We can be pacifists, like the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), without being unpatriotic, and I am certain that no hon. Member receives instructions from any other part of the world.
  I welcome this Resolution because I hate conscription, and I feel that this will get us back very largely to voluntary enlistment. If a man entering the Services can be assured of a home for himself, his wife and his family the Services will become much more attractive. The statistics on infidelity and divorce, which we all deplore, arise greatly through the separation of man and wife, and this

  263
  Committee is performing a very important task in helping to keep man and wife together.
  In Scotland, married quarters are sorely needed, because in the vast country areas those that exist are indeed a very long way from being good. I have the utmost desire to support the Financial Secretary and the Minister of Defence on this Resolution. I am anxious to keep in Order, although with no finesse, but I should like to say that I am sorry that when men are called up to the Services they cannot use their building skill and ability in erecting buildings while serving. That only makes it necessary to regard the call-up of building operatives as a very serious matter indeed.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I think all the Committee welcome any measure likely to increase the housing accommodation in this country. Nevertheless, we have a right to ask ourselves, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), whether this Measure will increase the supply of houses, at least in Scotland. We have pressed this matter in this Committee, in the Scottish Grand Committee, and elsewhere for many months, and have been told consistently that it is impossible to get any more houses built in Scotland because there is not the labour available. If that be true, it will seem that this Financial Resolution means nothing, because men are still being taken from the building industry and put into other industries. We want a definite assurance that the houses to be built as a result of passing this Resolution will not be included in the present allocation for Scotland as a whole, but will mean additional housing.
  I wish to refer to a topic which has not yet been alluded to during the Debate. I thought the remarks of the noble Lord were rather unfortunate. I noticed that he seemed to be referring to me during the course of those remarks, but having had 16 years in the Forces, I think I can say that I am as willing as anybody to look after my country.
  Earl Winterton: I was referring to the attack which had been made on the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). Reference to that attack has now been ruled out of Order.
  Mr. Willis: I merely wanted to enlighten the noble Lord on that, because he is always well informed on these matters.
  The question of married quarters was first raised, in any volume, in 1946. I have received letters from men who had been in the Services a long time, warning me about certain aspects of this matter, and I think this warning ought to be borne in mind. It would be a bad thing if, in carrying out the proposals of this Resolution, we segregated the Armed Forces from the civilian population. I have always felt that the civilian population and the Armed Forces should be mixed to the greatest possible extent. For instance, in a naval port the Service men should live with the civilian population, and not be separated from them. Anybody with experience of married quarters in the Forces knows that frequently there is a considerable amount of unhappiness in married quarters because of the difficult relations between the various ranks and the effect that it has on the attitude of one wife to another.
  That was a common feature in the past which made many girls very unhappy. We must avoid that, and we must also avoid creating conditions in which the Service man looks upon himself as being different from a civilian. That is a bad thing, and I should like to know to what extent my right hon. Friend intends to co-operate with local authorities in this respect. I should prefer to have arrangements such as are made in mining areas when miners are moved, so that local authorities are given a special allocation of houses for Service people. I am sure this problem could be dealt with more satisfactorily in many cases. I raise this matter because it is important, and because I know from correspondence I received a. day or two ago that it is a question which is regarded with concern by some members of the Forces at the present moment.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Carmichael: I do not intervene in this Debate because I am opposed to the building of proper quarters for members of the Armed Forces. It is a right and proper task of any Government to provide the finest accommodation for its employees. Nevertheless, when discussing housing it would be wrong not to intervene, in view

  265
  of the very serious housing problem in Scotland. There seems to be a complete misunderstanding about the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I am satisfied that when he was discussing housing for the Armed Forces, it was not on the basis of his pacifist views but largely on the basis of the housing problem in Scotland, and certainly not because of any desire to deny to men in the Armed Forces the very best housing conditions the Government can provide.
  We are entitled to ask the Minister of Defence and his Service colleagues what arrangements they have in mind in preparing this housing scheme. Have any arrangements been made with local authorities in Scotland? What proportion of the amount already allocated for civilian housing will have to be handed over to the Government so that it may be taken over by the Armed Forces? I ask that because it is a serious question in some parts of Scotland. In Glasgow there has always been a regiment of one kind or another. Is it the intention of the Government to ask for a portion of the Glasgow Corporation's housing sites to be utilised exclusively for the Armed Forces? That is an important point.
  Secondly, if that is to be the case, what arrangements are to be made for building personnel to be directed to that part of the building industry in Scotland? I ask that question because some protests were made today about the very shocking housing conditions for married people in the Armed Forces. I am quite prepared to accept the view that the married quarters are very bad indeed, but I think that it would be wrong in a city like Glasgow, where overcrowding and shocking housing conditions still remain, for building labour to be given over exclusively to providing and looking after married quarters for the Armed Forces.
  The question of priority has been raised. I think that the person in the Armed Forces who makes a claim for housing accommodation for his family is entitled to the same consideration as the civilian, but it does not follow that a person who gets married quarters in the Armed Forces is entitled to priority in the city of Glasgow; otherwise he can join the Forces at any minute, be drafted to Glasgow, and immediately get housing
  266
  quarters in preference to people who have been applicants for houses for 10 or 12 years. That would cause ill-feeling between the civilian population and the Armed Forces, which would be quite unnecessary.
  Has the Minister considered discussing this problem with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, so that in the planning of priority no attempt is made to continue the delaying process for those who need houses in favour of those who may join the Army at an early date? I have examined the figures, and I think that on a rough calculation something like 6,000 houses may be built in a year for the Armed Forces. That may vary according to the rise and fall of building prices, but I think that 6,000 is not a bad guess. This will involve spending something like £8 million per annum. I want to know what proportion will be allocated to Scotland and what proportion to England.
  I also want to know what is to be the type of house; are the married quarters to be closely associated with the civilian population, and is there to be a distinction between the type of houses for officers and those for other ranks. I am prepared to admit that officers are required in the Army because of their greater knowledge of the technique of fighting, but I think that if we are to build up a decent community there should be no distinction in the type of places in which the Army live. I know that may be contrary to the idea of some hon. Members who have distinctive ideas about the Armed Forces, and that idea also prevails in regard to the civilian community. There are people who live in the West End and people who live in the East End. The Government are attempting to abolish that distinction, and I want to know if it is proposed to build two-apartment houses for the private, three-apartment houses for the sergeant, and four-apartment houses, or a special bungalow, for the officer. We are entitled to know that before we spend public money.
  Can the Minister and those associated with him use the ability of people who are in the building industry and who are called into the Forces in the provision of these married quarters? I am prepared to accept that every person who joins the Army or any of the Forces must qualify

  267
  in fighting efficiency. But what happens today? He goes through his necessary drills and because of certain attainments he may ultimately be directed to the band. Surely, if the Army, Navy and Air Force can find time to direct people to the band—all very necessary in this dull world of ours—a strong case can be made out for sending a person who has been connected with the building industry to help in the building of houses for himself and his friends in the Forces. If we cannot get a situation of that kind developed, we must at some other time,—because it would be out of Order now—ask for a complete review of the method of calling up people to the Armed Forces.
  I hope that toy contribution, along with that of my colleagues, although it may be slightly critical, it will not be regarded as an objection to the idea of the Government giving the very best quarters possible to the people who join the Forces. I am sorry that the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has gone.
  Lieut-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman is coming back.
  Mr. Carmichael: Yes, but he does not know the nice things that I am going to say about him. I hope that he will read them in HANSARD. AS a matter of fact, what I am about to say could be applied universally. I am glad that the Opposition welcome this Resolution and it is no use their telling us that they welcome it because of the dilapidations which took place during the war. One hon. Member told us that many of these houses were built during the period of the Crimean War. I am glad that the noble Lord and some of his hon. Friends in the year 1949 are at least prepared to give this Government credit for doing something worth while during their time of office.
  6.38 p.m.
  Lieut-Colonel Hamilton: We all heard with appreciation the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael). He perhaps misunderstood the situation slightly when he was making his remarks about accommodation in Glasgow. I have a good deal of acquaintance with accommodation in Glasgow, and I can, of course,
  268
  fully support what he said about the bad civilian accommodation there. I think, however, that he must remember that at least the families there do live together, and if there are no family quarters for married soldiers posted to Glasgow, who have to go there whether they like it or not, that means family separation.
  Mr. Carmichael: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be surprised to know that there are thousands, not hundreds, of families in Glasgow broken up because of their inability to find housing accommodation, who are living with "in-laws" of all kinds?
  Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: That is a strong point. I was not aware that there were a large number of families in that position. Nevertheless I should like to stress the point that the provision of married quarters is not merely a case of seeing that good accommodation is given to married soldiers, but also of seeing that families can live together, because there are many stations where at present that is not possible. I welcome this Resolution very much indeed because I have had a large amount of experience in this matter of the housing of soldiers
  I have always been very shocked and disgusted in the past at the scanty consideration given to this subject. The reason is quite clear. I do not think it is the case so much now, but the nation in the past has always tended to grudge any expenditure on its Defence Forces. It has not been possible to cut down on a soldier's pay, because that is laid down in the book, or on his rations, but the one thing on which it has been possible to cut down has been accommodation—a soldier has had to carry on in the existing accommodation, however inadequate and bad it might be. I used to resent that very much when I was responsible for military accommodation, and in no way was it worse than in the case of married quarters.
  As has been said, we have married quarters built at every stage in our history. We have heard about quarters that date back to the Crimean War, some of which are shockingly bad compared to modern standards. It has been found impossible to replace these quarters, and reconstruction was very often out of the question for technical reasons. In this connection, I suggest that much could be done by reconstructing derelict buildings

  269
  in some of the cities where military units are stationed and turning them into flats. I hope this aspect will be borne in mind in the general improvement to our military married quarters, because I think that an economy could be made in that way. I am thinking particularly of a city like Portsmouth, although in that case, perhaps, everything possible by way of reconstruction has already been done.
  In reply to those who complain that this means taking labour away from civilian building, I would point out that we are concerned here with British families who have to be housed somewhere. We are improving the housing accommodation of the nation as a whole just as much in building married quarters for soldiers as in providing accommodation for civilians—it is all part of the nation's housing problem.
  Mr. Willis: If the quantity of houses to be built is not increased, surely this means that those people who have been waiting from 12 to 15 years for a house will now have to wait even longer?
  Lieut-Colonel Hamilton: It is sometime since I was an active serving soldier, but I know that in my day it was a long time before a married soldier was able to get married quarters. I think that a soldier has to exercise a good deal of patience before he can get married quarters.
  Earl Winterton: Is not the answer that in some cases these unfortunate soldiers have been abroad for many years separated from their families? Ought not some priority to be given to them to get housing accommodation?
  Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: That is the point I was trying to make. Married soldiers and officers have to endure separation, in any case, by serving their term at foreign stations. They have to spend a considerable time abroad separated from their families, and facilities ought to be given to them to live with their families when they are serving in this country.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. A. R. W. Low: I am glad that point has been mentioned. We cannot hope, in present circumstances, to get complete equality in housing. I quite realise the point made by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr.
  270
  Willis), who objects to people jumping the queue. We all object to that, but we cannot expect to see complete equality. There is a very strong case to be made out for soldiers, sailors and airmen, and the officers of the three Services, who have to spend so many years serving abroad separated from their families, to be given an opportunity to live with their families when they are serving at home.
  Some hon. Members seem to be under the impression that the Forces are depriving the country of a certain amount of building labour. As I understand it, men who are required urgently for building work are being deferred. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I am wrong, perhaps I shall be corrected. I also understand that apprentices are deferred.
  Mr. Alexander: There is no general exemption under the 1947–48 Act for building operatives. Deferment is a matter for the appropriate authorities to consider in relation to the position of the man concerning his apprenticeship and his trade.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: If a man has finished his apprenticeship, is he not automatically called up?
  Mr. Alexander: They are called up from time to time, as they can be fitted in, at the expiration of their apprenticeship.
  Mr. Low: The point is, then, that they are eventually called up?
  Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Low: Many aspersions have been made about accommodation built during the Crimean War. I think it is the fact that the House of Commons was built at that time. A house is not poor just because it was built at that time; it depends on what has been done to it since. Many Members may take pride in living in houses built long before that time.
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that under this scheme houses will be built more quickly in outlying districts—that is, districts away from military and naval centres—where permanent staff are attached to Auxiliary and Territorial Army units. At present, it is very difficult for these people to find anywhere to live with their families. It must be remembered that this is an important part of the Auxiliary and Territorial Forces scheme. I am fully in agreement

  271
  with this Motion, but I submit this one reservation: that all these good intentions are useless unless they achieve their end, and that what we want to see is the houses being built.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Bing: First of all may I apologise to the Committee sincerely for taking part in this Debate, as I only came into it when it was half way through? In the same sense I ought to apologise because I left the previous Debate before it was finished. In doing so, I am reminded of the story of Lamb who, when he was a civil servant, was reminded how late he arrived for work and replied, "Yes, but think how early I go."
  I have had considerable correspondence with the Secretary of State for War in connection with married quarters in Hornchurch and with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Air in regard to the depot at Warley. One problem, which has not been dealt with so far, is how to get people not only into married quarters, but also out of them. Today, pressure is exerted on time-expired members of the Forces who occupy married quarters, who have nowhere else to go and are compelled to live in them because no other accommodation is available. When considering the provision of married quarters we have to consider the total amount of accommodation available. We cannot make more accommodation available for soldiers if, at the same time, we do not increase the total amount of accommodation throughout the country as a whole.
  There is a particular difficulty to which I want to draw the attention of the Committee, and I wish to address an appeal to hon. Members opposite as my own council is Conservative controlled. They have a rule which imposes an eight-year residence limit, which means that no retired professional soldier can ever hope for any accommodation. The same rule applies in many other local authorities, with the result that people have to stay as long as they can in married quarters. One of our constant difficulties in Hornchurch is caused by appeals to people who live in married quarters, who have nowhere else to go and no possibility of qualifying on any housing lists.
  Mr. Low: Is it not a fact that most councils which have that rule have an exception that they will treat those who have been in the Regular Forces on a separate basis altogether? That is true of many Conservative controlled councils of which I have knowledge.
  Mr. Bing: The hon. Member's progressive influence has been used with those councils with which he is most closely in touch. I would ask him to make an appeal, on behalf of the Armed Forces, to his Conservative friends in Hornchurch so that there might be some hope of retired soldiers getting some accommodation in that area.
  We have recently decided that there shall be no further private building. The class of people which corresponds to those who have most private building done, is the officer class. It is much more easy for officers, other things being equal, to get billets in private homes. If there is to be a co-ordinated Service programme of building, I urge the Minister to see that foremost priority should be given to building houses for other ranks. Until the "other rank" problem is solved, the officer problem should be left until later, in the same way that private building for wealthier people is being left at the moment.
  6.54 p.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I regret to have to intervene, but I must say something about the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). I beg the Minister to realise that if he wants to get the Regular Forces working properly, he must take good care of officers as well as other ranks. I am not suggesting that officers should have priority over other ranks where their cases are equal, but I do say that officers should have a fair chance of having their cases considered if they are deserving.
  Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will be the number of the houses built under this proposal? Although I welcome the Motion, I think there is great danger of our raising false hopes. I hope he will tell us whether the Government will build more houses than have been built for the Forces to date. If there is no prospect of that, I hope he will say so, because the Forces will be looking at this proposal and the legislation which will follow it with considerable

  273
  interest. They will expect great things of it, and it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to tell them what they ought to expect. I hope we shall be told what is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to the suggestion which has been made about bringing in local authorities.
  I should like to support the plea made on behalf of those coming out of the Armed Forces. If something can be done in the forthcoming legislation to ensure that there is sufficient accommodation for those coming into the civilian field after long service in the Forces, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not fail to do it. Perhaps that is not strictly within the ambit of this Motion; nevertheless, I take the opportunity of asking the Government to try to rectify the grievous situation of men who have served their country for many years and who find, at the end of their service, that they have nowhere to live.
  6.58 p.m.
  The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I apologise to the Committee for not being here at the beginning of the Debate to introduce the discussion on the Motion. It was only urgent Government business that did not allow me to be here on time, although I did not expect the Debate to start as early as 5.20 p.m. However, I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for having expounded the basic financial provisions of the scheme which will be put into legislative form if the Committee pass the Motion today.
  On the whole, I have no great reason to complain of the reception which Members on both sides have given to the Motion. The Service Departments have been spurred to find the best possible solution of the housing difficulties of the Fighting Services largely by expressions of opinion from Members on both sides of the House. I need quote only two such expressions, made in March last. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said:
  "… the question of the housing of troops and officers and N.C.Os. has been neglected not by one Government, not by a Socialist or a Tory Government, but literally for hundreds of years. I am trying to put this matter on a non-party basis, and I say that there is no reason why we should not try to tackle it today."
  274
  I entirely accept that. The same day my right hon. Friend the Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger) said:
  "I think that in this country we ought to claim from the Minister of Health a certain proportion of houses for the Services, and particularly for the Army. After all, they are houses in England, and what does it matter whether they are occupied by civilians or soldiers and their families? They are all part of the community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1437–1523.]
  Earl Winterton: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, perhaps he will remember that I made the same remark that he has recalled on more than one occasion.
  Mr. Alexander: I have not been dissatisfied with the general reception of this Resolution. I wanted to remind the Committee that we have been very anxious to do what we now propose and which has been approved by Members on both sides. What is the problem? It is, first, that our forces are somewhat larger than they were before the war; secondly, as was said by the noble Lord, there is in the present make-up of the Forces and likely to be in the future, a rather higher percentage of men entitled to married quarters in the Services; and, thirdly, we have not in the past, extending over the last 50 or 60 years, made sufficient provision for the very minimum of accommodation for the married members of the Services.
  Broadly speaking, the present situation is that we have need for about 59,000 to 60,000 married quarters for the three Services in this country. We have at the present time only about 29,000 houses, of which those of a permanent character actually provided since the war number about 3,000. The other 26,000 may be described as being of all kinds and conditions. Some of them are fairly decent houses, which were erected in the more modern camps before the war, especially by the Royal Air Force. Some of them are very unsatisfactory and some are temporary married quarters, which have been improvised out of this, that or the other relic or hutment.
  We still have a need for 30,000 permanent houses in this country. From the pace at which we have been going in the' last two or three years, during which we have provided 3,000 houses for the services, it can be seen that it is going to be

  275
  at least 10 years or a longer period before we get to our minimum requirements for married quarters unless something is done to speed it up. Then comes the question, how is it to be done? My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) charges me with being the most profligate Minister in the Government. He says I am trying to work a quick one or to work a trick upon the Committee by turning this kind of expenditure into loan form, instead of making it annual expenditure. What sort of progress would be made in civil housing if local authorities had to provide houses out of current revenue? Is it reasonable to expect the Fighting Services to make the same kind of progress in their requirements, which are for human beings, too, if they are to be confined to a practice of paying for the married quarters each year out of revenue?
  All we are asking the Committee to give us in this Resolution is authority to finance by loan suitable houses for the Services in this country of a type which, if ever they are not required for military service, will be available for use by the civilian community. This is covered by loan expenditure instead of annual capital expenditure.
  Mr. Gallacher(Fife, West) rose —
  Mr. Alexander: I do not think that the hon. Member has been here very long.
  Mr. Gallacher: I have been here quite a time. Is it not a case that in any district where there are Service men, there is sufficient housing accommodation at the present time if a little reconstruction is carried out, provided the Service people are rationed in the same way as working class people are rationed in their accommodation?
  Mr. Alexander: I do not think that the hon. Member has studied the question for more than a few moments if that is the view of the general situation which he holds.
  Having given the Committee a general picture, I imagine hon. Members are entitled to have some idea of how quickly we can progress. I should like to progress much more quickly than I am afraid we are going to do, but the Committee must remember that the Government have had to make a general cut in
  276
  the capital investment programme, which affects building. We cannot claim greater priority for the Services nor expect special treatment compared with any other section. Therefore, what we aim to do in future is to handle the whole problem by joint consultation with the Service Ministers, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. As my hon. Friends from Scotland have put this specific point more than anybody else, I should like to inform them that we have complete co-operation from the Minister of Health in England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland in what we are proposing to do tonight.
  The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) is entitled to an answer to his question. I should say that we propose to start about 6,500 married quarters for the Services in the year 1950–51. We hope thereafter, because of the new provisions, to complete an average over the next five years of about 5,000 married quarters in this country.
  Earl Winterton: For all the Services?
  Mr. Alexander: Yes. What we want to do is to reach the target of married quarters' requirements in about half the period likely in any other circumstances.
  Major Legge-Bourke: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for answering my question, I wonder whether he would slightly enlarge upon it, and tell us if any houses are going to be built within the respective Service Estimates, because as I understand this proposal it is only for building houses outside defence or actual barrack areas. Is there going to be any building inside defence or barrack areas in addition to what he has given?
  Mr. Alexander: I indicated earlier that this scheme is subject to the condition that the houses are of a kind and in a position which would make them available to the civilian population if at any time we did not require them for defence purposes. In very outlying stations where houses may need to be provided, which would clearly have to be regarded as part of the regular defence works, they would not be likely to be of value to the civilian authority, and we should be content to carry them on the annual capital expenditure account. I have included such houses in the general figures which I have put forward.
  Mr. Molson: If there are these additional houses in defence areas will they be additional to the 6,500 which are to be started this year and the average of 5,000 a year after that? If they are houses of that kind will they have to be taken from the total number?
  Mr. Alexander: It is almost impossible at this stage to be exact upon that. Many of these schemes will have to be considered by each of the Service Ministers concerned to see what he is going to do in particular cases. After all, he is responsible in each case for administration and thus for housing policies of this kind. I would warn the Committee that the building of Service houses, as is the case with local authority houses, has got to be considered in the light of the general labour and material provision available for the whole of the country. It will be our endeavour to keep to the figures I have mentioned, and, if it is possible to add to the houses which are being built, it will be done. I cannot give a specific promise tonight, but it will be a matter for each of the Service Ministers.
  Earl Winterton: I should like to put a point quite shortly to the right hon. Gentleman. We want to be very clear about it and I am very glad that one of my hon. Friends has raised it. As I understand the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman, it would seem that where there are isolated places and the housing would not come under the Bill and would therefore not be available to civilian use, the chances of getting such houses built would be very much less than is the case today. It is a very important point.
  Mr. Alexander indicated dissent.
  Earl Winterton: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the overall amount would be governed by this Estimate.
  Mr. Alexander: The houses would be much more likely to be built, because under this Resolution we should not have to find the full amount of capital expenditure for housing within our Defence Vote. Therefore, there would not be that special deterrent, the "usual sort of thing "of which the noble Lord complained, and which has meant in the
  278
  past that the Works Vote and the Housing Vote was easy to cut when one had to reduce a Service Estimate.
  Mr. Swingler: I am not quite clear yet upon this point. When the Minister of Health announces a housing programme for the country, of say, 200,000 houses, will the 5,000 houses for the Services be a part of that 200,000? Will the total be 205,000 for the year, or only 195,000 for the civilian population and 5,000 for the Services? I am not clear whether the plan of married quarters for the Services is additional to the programme announced by the Minister of Health or not.
  Mr. Alexander: While we should keep always in the forefront the need for constant consultation about housing with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, any overall plan that they may announce for house building in this country will include what is being done under this Resolution for the Services. It would be inclusive. There is nothing terrifying about that. My hon. Friends will see that we can only move within the maximum available fund of capital, materials and labour.
  Mr. Carmichael: On this matter of labour, I understand that because of certain restrictions in trade unions we cannot use building trade labour when the men are in the Army. In other words, people who are in the building industry and are called up, cannot be directed to building after they have had their training. If this is the case, surely it is time that Ministers responsible for housing took steps to overcome the difficulty so that labour is not wasted away on other things than what it can do best.
  Mr. Alexander: I hope that the hon. Member will excuse me for saying that I think he is making rather too much of that sort of problem. The call-up to which he refers applies only to a limited section of the community at a certain age and for a certain period. It is absolutely essential, if we are to satisfy the universality principle in National Service that they should be called up. When they are with the Colours they must be given their actual military training, but an attempt is made at all times in the Services to give opportunities for the kind of work to which men are best suited, having regard

  279
  to what they have done or intend to do when they return to civil life. Beyond that answer I could not go.
  I have been asked a number of questions tonight and I am not sure whether I can answer them all. I will do my best. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) wants to know whether I am an enemy or an ally in regard to the general provision of houses. I have always been an ally of the provision of housing all my long political life, which has been just as long a political life as that of my hon. Friend. All that I am claiming is that the houses that we intend to provide for the men who are serving their country in this form of service, and for their wives, shall be just as good, and the men shall be at least as well treated, as in the case of those who are serving their country in the mines and fields, for whom we have already given special priorities in our general housing provision. My hon. Friend wanted me to answer a question about the size of the houses, while the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) raised the same point. It is essential, from the point of view of their responsibility for administration that the Service Ministers should be answerable to the House of Commons about the size of these houses.
  I want to be frank with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and others, having regard to things which have been said on both sides of the House about the position of officers in regard to their pay and allowances. Because of the high prices they have been forced to pay for accommodation in the last three or four years, it would be quite wrong if we did not make adequate provision for officers in the Services, especially for those who are among the lowest paid, many of whom have growing families to keep. The Service Ministers, following the general policy, will use their judgment about the allocation between officers and other ranks in regard to houses, and it will be for the House of Commons in Committee on the Service Estimates to express views and make any criticisms on the Service Estimates as submitted.
  A point was made, I think by my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), about the desirability that Service people who are on shore from the
  280
  Navy for the time being, and who are allocated to a district by the other two Services, should live as far as possible in general accommodation with other civilians. On the other hand, one of my other Scottish hon. Friends was most anxious to know whether or not we were going to take any sites, in our general housing provision, from those all ready allocated to or taken up by local authorities. We would like to have as much contact between the married families of the Services and their civilian neighbours as possible. We do not propose however in any way to take away or to interfere with sites which have been allocated to local authorities and approved and licensed under the various schemes approved by the Ministry of Health or the Scottish Department of Health.
  I say this. There will be the fullest consultation with the local authority in every local area where houses are built for the Services. It is true that, as this is a Crown scheme, it is not subject to the local bylaws, but there will be such consultation that it can be guaranteed that the houses will never contravene the general idea of the bylaws.
  Mr. Carmichael: Then there will be no compulsory power to take possession of land such as the Services had during the war, in such a case as Bellahouston Park? They will not walk into an area and say, "We want this for married quarters "?
  Mr. Alexander: If my hon. Friend is thinking that the Secretary of State for Air, who is listening to this Debate, would go and ask for a piece of Bellahouston Park in order to make a housing scheme, I can assure him that the Minister would never dream of doing such a thing without prior consultation with the local authority. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend and the other Service Ministers would be so concerned about the general amenities of the people that they would not make any such proposition. It may well be that in some of the outlying districts where a community was beginning to grow up round a camp, as was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler), we should have to requisition or purchase land, but it would not be for interfering with the existing amenities of the people or the local authorities.
  Mr. Carmichael: I do not want it to go out that my right hon. Friend would ever dream of taking Bellahouston Park and build houses on it, because there would be an outcry at once. The only point I am making is that the park was taken by compulsory powers. If it is desired to build houses in Glasgow the Services will have the greatest possible co-operation of the local authority, but in the event of a breakdown in the negotiations, will my right hon. Friend or the Service Ministers have power subsequently to say that, as the negotiations have failed, they will take possession of the land? That is the kind of thing I wish to avoid.
  Mr. Alexander: If after long and proper negotiation something which the Crown required was being quite unreasonably withheld from one of the Services of the Crown, we should require to exercise compulsory powers, but I am sure that such powers in respect of the provision of housing would never be injuriously or wrongfully used. I am sure that I can give that assurance.
  I believe I have covered practically all the points put to me in the Debate. I can only conclude by saying that I have welcomed very much the majority of the comments which have been made and I have also welcomed the criticism which has been made. The points which have been made will be carefully watched by my Service colleagues in the administration of the scheme.
  Commander Maitland: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, I should like to ask him a question. I apologise for not having been here the whole time. It is important to ask him this question. About three weeks ago the Civil Lord, in answer to a Question, laid it down as Admiralty policy that it was not the policy of His Majesty's Government to build married quarters for naval ratings in the home ports. It seems to me that the circumstances have been altered by these proposals. Will the Minister of Defence tell us whether it is now proposed to treat the matter on a wider basis and to reconsider that decision by the Government?
  Mr. Alexander: The requirements of the Navy under this scheme will be about 3,200 houses. How that is to be administered locally is entirely the
  282
  responsibility of the First Lord or his representative in the House under the terms of the White Paper. As I have given the information that the Navy will require about 3,200 houses, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be entitled to ask the First Lord or his representative exactly where they will provide them.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: When I asked a question, the Minister commented that I had not been present during the whole of the discussion. Like many other hon. Members, I have other commitments, and I had to see a deputation. However, I have heard sufficient to realise that this problem is not sufficiently understood by the Minister. The Minister says that he wants Service men who are defending the country to get equal treatment with those who are defending the country in the mines, in the engineering shops and so on. All right, but is the Minister aware that a young married civilian couple cannot get a house because housing is rationed for the workers? That is a very important fact. The Minister says that he has powers to take over land compulsorily if there is any hitch after much discussion with the local authorities.
  Thousands upon thousands of workers are defending the country in the mines and in the engineering shops and they are living in conditions which are simply appalling, and if we had squads of men razing thousands of these houses to the ground, we should be doing a service to the country and to the people. In any district where soldiers are stationed and married soldiers are looking for quarters, sufficient housing accommodation could be found if the Minister cared to use his powers. What has the Minister so say to the fact that we may have a soldier, his wife and his children unable to get accommodation and yet in the vicinity we may have a couple occupying a house of 10, 15 or 20 rooms? If the workers who are defending the country in the mines and the engineering shops are rationed for housing—married couples without children cannot get houses because they are rationed on the basis of so many adults for three, four, or five rooms—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The Resolution is confined to married quarters for Service personnel.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am talking about married quarters. I guarantee to go to Portsmouth with the Minister and show him where, with the least reconstruction and with proper rationing of housing, there is an abundance of accommodation for every Service family. I will take him to Glasgow, Edinburgh or any of these places and show him that, with proper rationing of housing accommodation, with the least bit of reconstruction and without taking labour away from the building of houses for workers, there is—
  Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles. I understood your Rulings when I and others were speaking were to the effect that we were concerned with houses for married couples in the Forces. How can the rationing of accommodation for the civilian population, to which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is referring, have anything to do with the Resolution?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I have been considering it very carefully and I think that the hon. Member for West Fife is in Order. The Resolution——
  Mr. Gallacher rose —
  The Deputy-Chairman: Order—refers to:
  "The provision of approved housing accommodation in Great Britain for married persons."
  I gather that what the hon. Member is arguing is that there are houses which can be requisitioned by the Minister of Defence in order to house married couples in the Services.
  Mr. Gallacher: The Minister himself said that he wants the men in the Services to get treatment as desirable as that given to the men who are serving the country in the mines and in the engineering shops. I agree with that. Married men in the Services should be able to get married quarters with the least possible delay so that when they are at home they can live with their wives and children. Everyone agrees with that, but the important thing is that in this country thousands upon thousands of men who are serving their country in the pits and in the engineering shops cannot get houses.
  The Deputy-Chairman: We are not concerned with men serving in the pits or in agriculture, but purely and simply with men serving in the Forces. In my opinion the hon. Member for West Fife is in Order when he says that there is vacant accommodation or partially bombed accommodation which can with the use of a little labour be converted into housing for the troops and their wives, but he must not talk too much about the mines.
  Mr. Gallacher: I wanted the Minister to make sure that the men for whom he is responsible would get accommodation more rapidly than those to whom he referred, who are defending the country in civilian jobs. The Minister can get that accommodation. If he has any doubts about it, I am prepared to put myself at his service and locate the necessary accommodation if he is prepared to use the great powers which he has. Without in any way disturbing the labour which is engaged in building houses for the others to whom he has referred, the Minister can in the shortest possible time get accommodation for every married couple in the Services.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander: I should be prepared to accept help or advice from any quarter of the Committee in order to get a development of our housing provisions for the Armed Forces. However, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) does not seem to realise that the Service authorities have been grappling with this problem for four years, and in the course of those years have actually made a number of conversions of the kind he is talking about. Service families are entitled to be given exactly the same kind of priority, in types of housing as well as location, as we have been prepared to give to the miners, the agricultural workers and the like. We are only asking for the same treatment and we must insist upon it.
  7.31 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: The Ruling which you have just given, Mr. Bowles, I do not dispute, and I am sorry if I was in conflict with the Chair earlier. It raises a point of immense importance, however. Indeed, the accuracy of your Ruling has been shown by what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I did not

  285
  realise—and it was no doubt ignorant of me—that the Government already possess power to requisition housing. That in no way alters the value of this provision, but in view of that I shall be expressing the views of my hon. Friends who are interested in these matters if, in view of the deplorable shortage of housing for married members of the Forces, I raise this point: has any effort been made by the right hon. Gentleman to requisition houses from the local authorities? If he possesses that power, when a local authority puts up houses why should not members of the Forces have priority? I think they should have it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that some efforts have been made, but if he cannot answer I shall raise this on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Alexander: That would not be my proposal at any time. Where local authorities have long waiting lists of civilians, and have their civilian schemes approved, it certainly would not be right politically to try to exercise requisitioning powers against them on behalf of the Services. We are standing up to the problem ourselves, negotiating with the Minister of Health and with the Secretary of State for Scotland for a proper position within the general provision of houses in the country. Beyond that I do not think we ought to go.
  Mr. Low: I was trying to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question at the end of his speech in regard to a point on which I may have misunderstood him. I thought I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that, in reviewing the programme for the building of married quarters for the Defence Forces over the next five years, certain cuts have had to be made in view of the economic situation. That rather shocked me because I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying:
  "… No cuts are being made in the programmes for the building of married quarters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1348.]
  From that statement I thought no cuts were being made in the building of these married quarters and that this scheme had been fixed for some time.
  Mr. Alexander: Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been. What I intended to convey was that, because of
  286
  the general reduction of the capital investment programme, there must be a ceiling limit upon the provision made in respect of housing in general.
  Mr. Low: The right hon. Gentleman did not mean to contradict that or to amend anything?
  Mr. Alexander: No.
  Resolved:
  That it is expedient—
  (a) to authorise the Treasury, during the five years ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, to issue out of the Consolidated Fund sums not exceeding in the aggregate forty million pounds, to be applied as appropriations in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for those years for the provision of approved housing accommodation in Great Britain for married persons serving in, or employed in connection with, the armed forces of the Crown, being accommodation the cost of the provision of which would otherwise fall to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament for the defence services:
  Provided that the amount so issued for any year to defray Navy, Army or Air Force expenditure in respect of the provision of approved housing accommodation in Great Britain for persons serving in, or employed in connection with, the Royal Navy or Royal Marines, the Army or the Air Force, as the case may be, shall not at any date exceed the aggregate of the amounts proposed to be so issued to defray that expenditure by the estimates upon which this House has, before that date, resolved to grant sums to His Majesty to defray that expenditure for that year;
  (b) to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing sums (or any part of sums) to be issued as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, or of providing for the replacement of all or any part of sums so issued, to raise money in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, and to provide that any securities created and issued accordingly shall be deemed for all purposes to have been created and issued under that Act;
  (c) to provide for the repayment to the Exchequer, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the defence services, of the sums issued as aforesaid, together with interest thereon;
  (d) to provide for the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer under the last foregoing paragraph and the application of sums so issued in redemption or repayment of debt, or, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.
  For the purpose of this Resolution the expression "approved" means approved by the

  287
  Treasury, and the expression "the defence services" means the Navy, Army and Air services.
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.
  Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  PRIVILEGES
  Mr. Ede and the Solicitor-General discharged from the Committee of Privileges, and the Attorney-General and Mr. Herbert Morrison added.—[Mr. R. Adams.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Adams.]

  WAR DEBTS
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Davies: I am glad that I have this opportunity of raising on a broad basis the issue of war debts and, in the time available, am able to look at a specific section of them, namely, the sterling balances. I hope thereby to elicit a little more information from the Minister than was given to the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christ-church (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) when he raised this issue on 15th November. Whether the hon. and gallant Member agrees with my point of view or not is another matter, but the entire House is agreed that here is a basic problem in British economy and one towards which we should now be looking and organising our forces in order to try to find an answer.
  By way of general introduction, I would point out that no civilisation can bear for ever such a burden of debt per head as is represented by war debt or National Debt. From figures which I have gathered from the Library, I find that the deadweight of National Debt per head of population in March, 1914, was about £14 2s. By March, 1946, the deadweight per head of the National Debt was £500 4s. Thus we have found a method of passing the burdens of wars past, present and future on to the as yet unborn. If every war were paid for on the nail, wars would never be fought. We live in a world of realities and those of us who are practical politicians know that the art of politics is not what you want but what you can get. In the last two wars, had the legislators of this
  288
  country had the courage, we should have imposed a rough equalisation of income on every citizen when we had to meet the forces of aggression from outside. Had that principle been applied we should not have found profiteers in war or so many people anxious for war to last a little longer. However, those are general points which in this short Debate I shall not be able to develop.
  I believe that one section of the war debts we must try to deal with is represented by the sterling balances, and this question has been raised many times by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch. As far as I am concerned, the issue is not one of repudiation but of the equalisation of the burden. I believe also that the sterling balances could be made an asset if we tackled the problem properly. If, for instance, there were a firm agreement of goods for goods, then the "bears" now in the market would be defeated. At the time of the Bretton Woods agreement, what did the authorities say when they talked of scaling down? We find that the Government of the United Kingdom, according to the Financial Secretary at that time,
  "intends to make an agreement with the countries concerned for an early settlement."
  The principle of joint contributory responsibility applies to the current defence of Western Union. The principle of joint contributory responsibility should have applied to the last war. In fact, the Second World War was in a way a world-wide enterprise against Fascism, and paying for that war is not merely a British problem but a world problem.
  I regretted very much, in a recent Debate in the House, hearing an hon. Member opposite referring to this country as a nation of spongers. That is entirely wrong, because if we analyse what Britain has had coming in and what we have given out since 1st January, 1946, we arrive at a completely different conclusion. Since the war Britain has received in total, by means of the American and Canadian Loans and Marshall Aid, a gross sum of £1,500 million in dollars. Since that date also Britain has spent £1,013 in dollars on overseas expenditure, including U.N.R.R.A., all other relief and rehabilitation, and the cost of administering Germany, as well as our heavy overseas military commitments. Since January, 1946, there has been also a legal export—or there was until a month ago

  289
  —of capital from this country to the sterling area of £450 million. We have also released £430 million worth of sterling balances, making, therefore, a total of £880 million. This means that this amount of capital and exports has been transferred from this country without any return. We see, therefore, that in total Britain has provided to other countries aid in excess of her dollar aid by £400 million.
  If we take a different set of figures and analyse them, comparing the British balance of imports and exports to and from the United States with the same balance of the sterling area excluding Britain, we arrive at approximately the same conclusion. That is a state of affairs which cannot possibly continue. I reiterate, therefore, that paying for the last World War is a problem not merely for the British people, but for the entire world. If revolutionary situations are to be prevented from arising in the world, it is of paramount importance that all nations regard this problem as a world problem.
  In 1945 Lord Keynes, with skill and patience, tried to negotiate in Washington on this issue of war debts, and the Foreign Secretary, on 13th December, 1945, indicated to the House that the whole struggle then was to get Lend-Lease written off retrospectively. I contend that the Marshall Plan and the "little" Marshall Plan have shown already that the entire approach to the problem has altered. That is indicated also, I believe, by Mr. Truman's Fourth Point.
  I believe that in Washington this month there will be a discussion in which this problem of British war debts, sterling balances or whatever they are called, will be considered. We know that no satisfactory solution has been found to this problem, and we already have a first-class economic argument which puts forward the point of view which I am now trying to expound. If hon. Members will read the book by Professor Hancock and Miss Gowing, which was published by His Majesty's Stationery Office and is to be found in our Library, they will see on page 369 a chart showing war expenditure as a percentage of national income. The interesting thing about that chart in this excellent book is that it is not an English, but an American, chart. It was presented to Congress by President Truman as part
  290
  of his 20th Report on Lend-Lease in August, 1945. Page 369 of this book contains also this quotation:
  "To the extent that the cost of each nation's contribution to the war can be measured in financial terms, probably the best measurement is the proportion of its national income which each of the United Nations is devoting to the war."
  Here Mr. Truman merely represented the recommendation of his famous predecessor, President Roosevelt, who in June, 1942, in his 5th Lend-Lease Report, said:
  "All the United Nations are seeking maximum conversion to war production in the light of their special resources. If each country devotes roughly the same fraction of its national production to the war, then the financial burden of the war is distributed equally among the United Nations in accordance with their ability to pay."
  That is a wise democratic policy in so far as the last World War was a world public enterprise against the spread of Fascism. It would mean that each citizen of the Allies would pay in accordance with his ability to pay—that is, in reality with income—which is a democratic principle.
  The Truman-Roosevelt doctrine leaves out for Britain the effect of bombing and of shipping losses. If we take the Truman chart on page 369 of Professor Hancock's book and apply these percentages to actual national income and war expenditure, there is an over-payment by Britain of £6,000 million and a short-fall in the case of the United States by £7,500 million. That is not to say that America is not a great and generous nation or that the American citizen did not pull his weight in the last war. I do not want to cast any aspersions on any nation. I merely want to try to look at this question from the point of view of sterling balances in relation to the economic crisis in the world—it is not only a British crisis, but a world crisis—realising that no other country has faced the storm of the economic crisis so squarely, or has managed to steer so steady a course through those seas, as this country. One point we ought to notice is that on 28th February, 1948, the "Statist" dealt with these problems and showed that the figures I have mentioned could be approximately doubled if all the details were included.
  I admit that there are many causes besides war finance and war debt which add to Britain's dollar and other diffi-

  291
  culties and I believe I would be in Order in introducing an example of one or two. We have the decline in dollar earnings and the typical example of what I call "hot" money. Only a few days ago I asked a Question of the Colonial Secretary about the movement of coffee from Kenya to Italy. There is a lot of commodity-shunting going on in the world at the moment, which is undermining the £, undermining the sterling area and placing Britain in a difficult economic position. It was interesting to see that in December, 1948, the amount of coffee moving from Kenya to Italy was only 100 cwt. In June, 1949, it was nil, but in July it was 261 cwt. and in October—last month—it reached the peak point of 923 cwt.
  The "Financial Times" has taken the trouble to explain to financiers how they can dodge the exchanges. It had two excellent articles, one on 16th November and the other on 17th November, 1949, dealing with this problem of markets for cheap sterling. Referring to Italy in the second article, it said:
  "The opening reference to 'commodity shunting' is in connection with the marrying-off of different descriptions of sterling, involving usually a hard currency transaction at some stage. Multiple currency practices"—
  They can be many, because there are more than 100 quotations of the £ in the world at present—
  "… facilitate these deals by creating divergent cross-rates."
  Here is the bit in which I am interested:
  "But, in the case of Italy, which was allowed to return to the transferable account area on condition that she established the official dollar-sterling cross-rate, Italian assurances of the strict observance of Bank of England regulations have not availed very much."
  I need not go on quoting. That was the reason why I put down the Question about Kenyan coffee, because all over the world this movement of "hot" money is undermining the position of the £. If it is thought out by any group of industrialists or merchants, it is one of the most unpatriotic acts in which any section of the City, or elsewhere, could participate at present.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Has the hon. Member any evidence that any "hot" money is used by anyone in the City for the purposes to which he has referred?
  Mr. Davies: I qualified it; I said "If." Later on I will come a bit nearer the bone. There is something else we must realise about these unrequited exports. I have not the time to work out the involved economic analysis, but does not the issue of unrequited exports increase the inflationary tendency in the country? I think it does. We are continually sending them to discharge sterling war debts. "The Times" of 21st August, 1945, put the matter in a nutshell:
  "The possible need for transitional financial assistance from the United States will arise in large measure from the arbitrary and accidental way in which the financial burdens of the common war effort came to be distributed and the case is strong for some readjustment recognising the principle of ' equality of sacrifice ' laid down by Mr. Roosevelt and permitting the change-over from war to peace to be accompanied with the fewest restrictive practices and the highest commercial freedom and productive efficiency."
  This naturally brings me to point 13 of the recent Washington communiqué dealing with sterling balances. The most encouraging passage in the entire communiqué was—or was it?—I put that qualification in, that the balances were frankly described as the result of payments made by Great Britain "in the common war effort." There is a frank and generous recognition of that on the part of the United States of America. Congressman Christian Herter came to Europe and made the famous Marshall Report, which he drew up after his Committee's tour of Europe, on 1st February, 1948. Congressman Herter's report confirmed this general thesis of mine. In his report dealing with England's trouble, Congressman Herter called for a war debt conference and paid a remarkable tribute to Britain, a much greater tribute than we have had paid by hon. Members opposite. Four brief passages of the Herter Committee's report are very relevant. The report says:
  "For well over a century and until the recent war, the pound sterling was the monetary unit for carrying on a substantial part of the world's multilateral commerce. This activity has languished since the war because of the inconvertibility of the pound sterling and attempts to revive it by use of the dollar, however flattering, have been unsuccessful. The dollar can probably never take the place of the pound sterling in world trade because the United States may never be an importer to the same relative extent and on as world-wide a basis as the United Kingdom."
  He then pointed out that the sterling balances hung like a millstone round the

  293
  neck of the British economy and he called right away for a distribution of the burden and suggested that the United States must assist in calling a conference and participating in the solution, perhaps by providing the means for converting some of the sterling balances into dollars as an inducement to Britain's creditors to make substantial reductions. Even the Herter Committee recognised that the dollar could never quite take the place of the £ sterling because of the unique position of the sterling area, and of Britain in particular, in world economy.
  Have we used our bargaining power enough when discussing these sterling balances? The very fact that we import four-fifths of the world's butter, half the world's egg production, half the world's cheese and half the world's tea—I could give other examples—show that we are in a strong position. Have we used that position as a buyer in world affairs to force the world to face the public enterprise of the Second World War against Fascism and to try to get equalisation of the burden amongst the ex-belligerent countries of the world? I think not.
  There may be some danger in Herter's suggestion about the dollar credits, because I believe that if we allowed our sterling balances to move over completely into the dollar area and be credited by dollars, there would be a demoralisation of the pound and we should also lose future markets. I do not think we should do that. I believe that another approach to this problem can be made, and I believe that our Government, whatever may be said elsewhere, have a strong bargaining power which they have not yet been prepared to use at the international conference tables of the world.
  I have two other points to make and then I will leave the matter to other hon. Members to take up. Walter Lippman, in a famous article on "Liquidating the British Crisis," suggested that the United States should directly discharge these war debts to countries such as India. In my view a war debt settlement is needed between America, the Commonwealth and Britain to reach an agreement to enable sterling to be freely convertible for current transactions. There may be a danger in the Lippman suggestion. I ask the Economic Secretary whether he considers that this solution would be a selling out of the future of our heavy capital industries in those areas? Does he believe that
  294
  if we did this it would mean that we should lose markets in areas which hitherto naturally linked up with the sterling area?
  Finally, I believe that a co-ordination of economic policy within the Commonwealth is needed. On this issue of sterling balances, I do not think that up to now we have had that co-ordination. I wonder whether the Government and the country as a whole fully realise the absolute or paramount importance of this problem to the economy of Britain? I should therefore like the Economic Secretary to tell the House, if he can, in what kind of mood the Government hope to go into the Washington conference to discuss this problem of the sterling balances, and whether he realises that we have come to the end of continuous appeals to the mass of the people in Britain. We have been moving in a circle; we have been saying to the people of Britain of all classes, "Work harder, consume less, produce more, and we shall solve the problem." Then to our amazement we find that there are forces outside this House of Commons and outside this Government that cannot be controlled—I have given examples of some of them—and once again we are confronted with a crisis which is not really internal but external.
  I believe that the great success which the Government have had has probably been due as much as anything to the profound common sense, innate stability and fundamental decency of the mass of British people, irrespective of creed or politics; but if the public are met all the time with some exterior crisis to which, no matter how hard they work or how little they consume there is no answer, I believe that we shall undermine the social welfare State which we have set up.
  I regret to be forthright here, but I believe that in some cases there is an attempt in parts of the City—the hon. and gallant Member can challenge me on this matter if he wishes—to use this weapon of "hot" money, this weapon of cross-rates, this weapon of movements of goods, to undermine not so much the stability of the country but the stability of the Government, which have been in power for four years only and which in those four years have done more for the mass of the people than any other Government in history.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Member has returned to the same charge as before. Surely he is aware that anyone in the City, whatever his feelings may be, can only obtain the proper exchange rate for any transaction in any currency, and that it is quite impossible for anyone in the City to use money in the way in which the hon. Member has described? If he has any evidence will he please, as I asked him about 10 minutes ago, produce it or withdraw the charge?
  Mr. Davies: I qualified my observations by saying "I believe." The attack on the Government economy can take place in two or three different ways. The attack can be on gilt-edged securities; there can be rumours of the devaluation of the dollar. Are there or are there not? There can be attacks on the pound. I believe that up to the devaluation of the pound we had co-operation from the City. The publication of these two articles in the "Financial Times," which are two of the most excellent articles I have ever read on how to dodge the exchanges—I know they are not written with that title—expose—call it exposure if you wish—the method by means of which "hot" money, cross-rates and other kinds of manipulation can undermine the pound. The hon. and gallant Member will have an opportunity to reply and can take me up on that point if he wishes. I do not think that these two articles have done a service to the Government or to the pound sterling. I think that they try to undermine confidence in the pound sterling and in this Government.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. Parkin: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) for seizing this opportunity to re-introduce this subject in such a broad and well documented way. I hope that the Government will be grateful also for an opportunity perhaps to add a little more to what they have been able to say in the past about this problem of war debts and sterling balances which has been with us for far too long. We begin of course with the fact that the sterling balances are owed to people who undertook to render certain services to us or to supply us with certain commodities in exchange for value.
  296
  That was a bargain which was entered into during the stress of war by the predecessors of the present Government, but which the other people have every right to expect shall be honoured. It is no use people lecturing the Government and telling them that they ought to take advantage of Bretton Woods to have these balances scaled down when in fact discussions on that subject must be between ourselves and those who hold the sterling balances, and not with the broad comity of nations which backed Bretton Woods.
  I suggest that this problem would perforce have been solved a long time ago—we could never have carried the problem for as long as we have done—but for the fact that by accident it happens that the existence of these sterling balances helps along that broad policy of aid in rehabilitation after the war and assistance to younger nations in their own development plan, a broad policy behind which this Government and the party to which I belong stand and will continue to be in broad support. It is indeed a complete and world approach to the problem of world rehabilitation at the end of the war. It is a mere accident that the debts which were incurred happen to coincide with the need for capital development in some of those countries.
  I think we have gone far enough in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Leek has given the figures of the extent to which Britain has carried a burden of help to other nations since the end of the war. We are fond of telling the Americans that they must grow up. We exhort the Americans to remember that they are now a great creditor nation and must behave like one. I think we sometimes forget that, as the Leader of the Opposition so mournfully pointed out, we ourselves are a debtor nation, and it is about time we behaved like a debtor nation. We should say to the rest of the Allies, to those who are able to share in this burden, that, although we are prepared to bear our own share of this burden, we canot much longer continue to pay at the rate at which we have been paying in the past.
  The problem divides itself roughly into two, because it is a matter of goods so far as we are concerned, and not merely of cash. It is a question of whether we

  297
  can supply either capital sterling or consumer goods to the holders of the balances. I think we are entitled to say at Washington, and to the world at large, that although we will accept liability to pay our own reasonable proportion of these balances in sterling, and only in sterling, yet the whole total of them should be regarded as part of the general war effort of the Allies; and what happens to the remainder depends upon the attitude which others of the Allies feel able to take.
  Frankly, what that means is that it is desirable that the United States of America should say that they are able to guarantee to some such organisation as the International Monetary Fund the dollar backing necessary if it were possible to come to an arrangement by which the remainder of the burden could be shifted on to such a fund. So far as our obligation is concerned, our own share ought to be paid in sterling, and only in sterling.
  I wish to ask the Economic Secretary whether any consideration has been given to the possibility of approaching the holders of these sterling balances and making the sort of trade agreement that has recently been negotiated with other countries where outstanding indebtedness has been brought into the picture; whether it would be possible to make arrangements to draw up lists of essential, desirable and non-essential goods and agree with the holders of the balances that if a percentage is available each year so much shall be spent on consumer goods, provided an equivalent amount is spent from the free sterling which they hold?
  In other words out of the purchases of certain types of goods from this country by the countries who are our creditors a certain percentage shall be allowed from the sterling balances each year. We may then contrive to get a reasonable balance between the sort of goods which we can conveniently spare from year to year, because it is most important that we should retain in those countries a market for our consumer goods.
  We cannot have it both ways. We cannot shift this responsibility on to the shoulders of the dollar area and still expect our own commercial interests in this country to be unimpaired. We want to
  298
  preserve a market for our own consumer goods, and for capital goods if possible where we are very much over burdened at the present time. If we could first of all get agreement of support from our allies, and then an agreement from the holders of the balances to spend a proportion of them in different categories of goods which may be drawn up I think we could come to an agreement on this matter which would be a great relief, not only to the Treasury, but to the people of this country who have a feeling that there is no end to the number of demands which might be put upon them as a result of this long outstanding problem.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Swingler: We are indebted to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) for raising once again this question of war debts. As he said, it has been discussed on a number of occasions in this House since 1945, but we are entitled to go on raising this question, because it is one that has not yet been dealt with properly. We are entitled to underline the extent to which we are suffering today from the costs of war, and from the fact that Britain bore a disproportionate part of the cost of the 1939–45 war. The hon. Member for Leek recalled the famous declaration of President Roosevelt in 1942, when presenting his Lend-Lease Report, in favour of applying the principle of equality of sacrifice to the United Nations; that the burden of the war should be equally and fairly spread by the same sort of fraction of the national incomes of the United Nations being spent on war.
  In fact, it has turned out, taking into account Lend-Lease and reverse Lend-Lease, that Great Britain bore a disproportionate burden. If, in fact, that principle of equal sacrifice had been applied, there is due to this country the sum of £6,000 million for what in fact was over-spent if exactly the same fraction of the national income were applied to the Powers that fought against Fascism. That is not my figure, but the figure given by Congressman Herter in his report. There is nothing I wish to add to the analysis so ably outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek, but I want to make a completely different point which, I think, is relevant.
  It is not only true that Britain paid a disproportionate amount of the cost of

  299
  the Second World War, and has suffered as a consequence of that a piling up of debts and sterling balances—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Parkin) has been discussing—but it is also true that we are already paying a disproportionate amount of the cost of the next war. It should be emphasised that today under the heading of defence, and the meeting of world-wide commitments, and by contributing to arrangements under various Acts and treaties, this country is bearing a disproportionate burden. This country is a heavy d6btor nation as a result of suffering the whole course of two world wars and the enormous losses sustained in the Second World War including over £6,000 million of British overseas investments, as well as the actual physical destruction and the piling up of these debts and so on. It is an amazing situation, therefore, that this country should today be paying a higher proportion of its national income for defence—in the opinion of some people in preparation for the next war—than any other nation in the world except the Dominion of Australia.
  According to figures recently published in Report No. 1265 of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is available to hon. Members, Britain is spending 7.6 per cent. of her national income on defence, compared with an expenditure of 6.4 per cent. by the United States, between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. by France, 3.2 per cent. by Belgium and 2.0 per cent. by Canada. I quote those figures from memory, but I think that I have quoted them correctly. It is, I think, true that the Australians are spending some 11 per cent. of their national income on defence. It is also true that the Netherlands have a very heavy defence budget this year which I think is roughly the same percentage of national expenditure as the figure for Britain.
  What is true—and again this is on the authority of the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs—is that if an average percentage were struck of expenditure on the defence preparations of all the Atlantic Pact countries, this country could reduce its budget by £147 million. We are spending £147 million more for defence than we would have to spend if President Roosevelt's principle of equality
  300
  of sacrifice, worked out in terms of the national income of each country and the amount being spent on defence—that being regarded as a common effort—were applied. We find that the United Kingdom, having suffered the consequences of two world wars, having paid out a higher proportion than the other United Nations for the Second World War and, four years after that war, now bears a heavier burden in its defence budget in relation to its national income than the other countries in the common effort, including countries which are far wealthier and which have far greater resources.
  When that situation is appreciated, very little more need be said to account for the British crisis of 1949. We need to go into little more than these results of past wars and the problems arising out of defence in the past, the present and the future, in order to appreciate the position. The problem is aggravated by the fact that the trend is for the cost of war to become heavier. The cost of the last war per day per man equipped was far heavier than the first war, and in the next war it will be a hundred times greater. Anyone who has studied the defence budgets of different nations—and particularly that of this country with its global commitments—knows that the enormous cost that we have to pay is not merely due to our world-wide commitments, because Britain had these Imperial commitments during the inter-war years, but is due to the fact that modern equipment is vastly expensive and rapidly becomes obsolescent. The cost of equipment—of wireless, tanks guns and planes—increases rapidly.
  This burden of defence hangs like a millstone round our neck while we struggle to reconstruct after the world upheaval caused by the last war. On this question we must implore the Economic Secretary and his colleagues to become more tough-minded. We cannot continue to bear these burdens. If nothing can be done quickly to apply the principle of equality of sacrifice to the past, something can be done about the present. Something can be done about piling up debts in the present. In view of the criticisms made about the causes of our economic crisis, we are tntitled to demand that in any arrangements, in commonly agreed foreign policies and commonly signed treaties and so on, we should not have to bear a disproportionate part of the cost.

  301
  To my mind, we are entitled to demand more than that. We are entitled to demand that we should have to pay less than what is strictly our fair share, because we have borne a disproportionate amount of the cost in the past. We are entitled to say that we should be allowed to pay a smaller fraction of our national income for military preparations than other countries which are better situated or which suffered less from the economic point of view. In any case, we are entitled to demand that this Government should stand up for some kind of fair shares. We are entitled to say that it is wrong in every way that this country in its present situation, in receipt of Marshall Aid, and "carrying the can" as it does in various parts of the world, should have to spend 7.6 per cent. of its national income on defence when the United States spends only 6.4 per cent., Canada only 2.0 per cent. and France only 4.6 per cent.
  There are people who say that we should spend more, that we should provide more men for the forces and commit ourselves even further in Western Europe. We are entitled to demand that there should be some form of equal sacrifice in regard to manpower, costs and so on, in connection with that policy, just as we strive to get the application of the principle which was enunciated by the President of the United States of America. That is no reflection on or criticism of American policy. It was, after all, the great American war leader whom we all salute, President Roosevelt, who generously enunciated that principle of equality of sacrifice in the national income in trying to pay for the war—in a way in which wars have not been paid for in the past—as a common war effort. I think we ace entitled to consider this picture as a whole—not merely the sterling balances and how they should be dealt with as a separate problem, or merely the war debts that have piled up, as well as the prospective war debts that may pile up in future—together with the general strain on the economy of the country of payments for past, present and future wars.
  8.30 p.m.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): My hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) has raised this subject in a very
  302
  broad fashion, and I have noted what he said and what was said by his hon. Friends; I am sure that others, both in this country and outside, will also note their views.
  It is, of course, wholly salutary for it to be constantly pointed out that this country is suffering an enormous burden as the result of the war, indeed as the result of two wars, and that that is in fact one of the main causes, if not the main cause, of our present difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Leek spoke of the total of the war debts both internal and external, which we have incurred, and he quoted figures of the entire National Debt as far back as 1914, compared with today. It is true that there has been an enormous increase in the total debt; from a figure in March, 1939, of about £8,280 million, to a figure at this moment of about £26,125 million. The total debt, was actually reduced by approximately £450 million in the last Budget year, as a result of the Budget surplus which we in this country, almost alone in the world, have enjoyed in the last two years. Owing to devaluation, that drop in the nominal total of the debt in sterling has been wiped out at the moment; but, of course, the figure is still less than it would have been if we had not had the Budget surplus.
  At the same time, as a result of the policy of this Government in keeping low the interest rates on Government debt, the burden on the present Budget is very much lower than it would otherwise have been. In 1938–39, the annual interest bill falling on the Budget was £216 million, and that has risen in the present year to an estimate of £466 million. If the average rate of interest on the National Debt today was the same as in 1938–39, the annual bill today would be £665 million. Therefore, we have saved the very substantial sum of £200 million in that fashion, and if there are any who advocate higher interest rates for Government debt, they should pause to think what that would mean in added Government expenditure.
  My hon. Friend devoted most of his time, quite naturally, to the external debt incurred in the last war, or the sterling balances, as they have come to be called. He argued that, if the burden of paying for the last war had been apportioned on the principle of each country paying in

  303
  proportion to its national income, this country would have paid much less than in fact it did pay. He inferred that this country had over-paid in the final settlement that resulted from the war. I think that is a view which is very widely shared in this country. It is not, perhaps, for me to say how widely it is shared outside this country; but it is fair to point out, first of all, that in the Washington communiqué these debts were spoken of as arising out of the common war effort.
  It is also true, I think, that the United States Government, in the original Loan of 1945 and the Lend-Lease settlement, and, of course, in the Marshall Aid agreement, to some extent recognised that fact as arising out of the way in which the war had been financed. It is also fair to recall that the Australian and New Zealand Governments have also recognised it by the free gifts which they have made to this country, and which, of course, have had the direct effect of reducing these debts. The Australian Government have made gifts of that kind totalling £36 million and the New Zealand Government has made a gift of £10 million.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that the discharge of this debt obligation—the release of sums from these sterling balances—is, of course, a call on the productive resources of this country. I do not quite accept all his figures as I understood them, but it is approximately true that if we reckon up all the gifts and loans which this country has received from the North American continent since the war, and all the aid we have given to other countries, by way of U.N.R.R.A. by way of the European Payments Agreement and in many other forms, the two totals are not so far different from one another. That in itself is an answer to the argument we sometimes hear from the Opposition that this country has been living on foreign aid since the war.
  When I listen to some of the speeches made by the Opposition on this subject, and in particular to the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre)—who is so sedulous in bringing it to our attention—I often wonder what it is that the Opposition are asking us to do. Some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite create the impression that the Opposition are in favour
  304
  of the unilateral repudiation of these obligations.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to me at the moment. Can he give a quotation from any of my speeches to substantiate what he says?
  Mr. Jay: Yes, I certainly can. In the course of a question addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) last week, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
  "If the hon. Member will look at the Bretton Woods Agreement he will see that it was not a question of whether we would attempt to do this or that, but that we would undertake a just scaling down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1980.]
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Scaling down, not repudiation.
  Mr. Jay: I am very glad to have for the first time a clear statement from the hon. and gallant Member that he is not proposing the unilateral repudiation of these debts.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Before I interrupted the hon. Gentleman for the first time he accused me of using the word "repudiation." He has now quoted a phrase of mine in which I said "scaling down." He must agree that the two things are entirely different, and I hope that he will now withdraw the imputation that I used the word "repudiation" in that connection.
  Mr. Jay: I am asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he will assure me that he has not advocated, and is not advocating, repudiation of these debts; I shall be very happy to have the matter cleared up.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not the debt repudiated by the amount it is scaled down?
  Mr. Jay: I think that could be argued, but I believe we are now in agreement that the hon. and gallant Member is not in favour of the repudiation of these debts.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Gentleman can clear up the matter now by withdrawing what he said, that I had suggested that these debts should be repudiated.
  Mr. Jay: What I said was that some of the speeches made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman might have created that impression. I am very glad to have his assurance that that is not what he is proposing. But if he and the Opposition are not proposing the repudiation of these obligations, then just what exactly is it that they are recommending? If they are recommending that we should get together with the holders of these balances and that we should seek by agreement to achieve a mutually agreed settlement, that, of course, is precisely what we have done. If that is what the hon. and gallant Member is arguing, however, I think he deceives himself in failing to face this basic hard fact in the situation: namely, that those who hold these balances have not, in fact, hitherto been willing to agree to any scaling down of that kind, apart from the gifts by Australia and New Zealand. The fact is that there is a very deep difference of opinion on this subject between many people in this country on the one hand and the public in the countries which hold the balances on the other hand, in the way in which we look at these obligations. It is no good ignoring that fact. It is one of the basic facts in the situation.
  The other night the hon. and gallant Member tried to argue that there was some obligation, as he said, in the Bretton Woods agreement that we had not carried out. In that he was inaccurate in several respects. First—and here I think I am also correcting my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies)—the Bretton Woods Agreement makes no reference to the sterling balances at all. The only reference to the sterling balances is contained in the Anglo-American Financial Agreement of December, 1945; and I think it is perhaps the coincidence of the dates which misled the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is Article 10 of the Financial Agreement with the United States. Secondly, that Article does not place any obligation on this country to scale down the balances. What it says is:
  "The Government of the United Kingdom intends to make agreements with the countries concerned …. The United Kingdom will make every endeavour to secure the early completion of these arrangements."
  It should be quite clear that the obligation on this country is not forthwith to scale down these debts, but to seek agree-
  306
  ment on the subject. Thirdly, I should like to point out that the expression "scale down" which the hon. and gallant Gentleman used does not appear in the Anglo-American Loan Agreement either.
  Mr. William Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman read the whole of it?
  Mr. Jay: The actual word used is "adjusted." It divides the balances into three parts, and the third part is: balances to be adjusted as a contribution to the settlement of the war debts. I think we ought to get this clear since it was quoted the other night.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I should like to know what is the actual technical difference which the hon. Gentleman puts between "adjusting" and "scaling down."
  Mr. Jay: The hon. and gallant Gentleman understands the English language just as well as I do, and I should have thought that "scaling down" and "adjustment" do not mean the same thing.
  Mr. Shepherd: Would the hon. Gentleman read the whole of Article 10 so that we can see exactly what His Majesty's Government undertook to do?
  Mr. Jay: It would take a very long time if I read the whole Article, but broadly speaking it starts by saying:
  "The Government of the United Kingdom intends to make agreements with the countries concerned … covering the sterling balances "
  and later on it says that these settlements
  "will be on the basis of dividing these accumulated balances into three categories."
  The first is to be released at once, the second is to be similarly released by instalments, and the third is to be adjusted. It finally says—and these are the crucial words:
  "The Government of the United Kingdom will make every endeavour to secure the early completion of these arrangements."
  It follows, I think, that if we accept the two facts, which I gather the hon. and gallant Gentleman does accept, first that none of us—
  Mr. Parkin: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? It may be true that the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) gives the impression, wherever he is, that

  307
  he is advocating the repudiation of sterling debts, but in fact he has not spoken tonight. Could my hon. Friend flatter him a little less, by not answering a speech he has not made, and pay some attention to the statesmanlike proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies)?
  Mr. Jay: I was just coming to that. To give credit where it is due, however, the hon. and gallant Member has made more speeches on this subject, taken by and large, than have my hon. Friends.
  If it is agreed that none of us is in favour of the repudiation of these agreements, and if it is also accepted that the countries concerned have not hitherto agreed to the scaling down of the debts, there are, I think, only two practical courses open to us. The first of these courses has been to leave the question of principle for the moment unsettled, and to make temporary arrangements for the release of certain amounts of the balances year by year.
  If this is agreed, the immediate question becomes, in effect, how large the release should be in each case, and how rapidly it should be made. When we come to consider that, in relation to one country or another, I think we have to take into account the factors put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek and, indeed, certain other factors. First, we have to remember that a large proportion of these balances represents the monetary reserves of the countries concerned. Secondly, I think we have to take into account the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Parkin)—the immediate and important needs of some of the countries holding the balances, both for food supplies and for the supply of raw materials; in the case of India, these have been very vital. We have also to remember their need for capital development, which is essential if some of the less-developed countries of the Commonwealth are to build up their productive capacity and are, in the end, to render us less dependent on dollar supplies.
  Another important fact which we have to take into account is how far, by release of balances from this country and release of British exports at the same time, we can save dollars by enabling these Commonwealth countries to buy fewer
  308
  American goods. At the moment that is a particularly important factor because the whole Commonwealth is making an effort to economise dollars and to take British goods instead. The next factor mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is also important, when he said that to some extent a steady release of these balances helps to build up, in the long term, an export trade from this country to other Commonwealth countries.
  Mr. Harold Davies: The "Economic Bulletin" for Europe emphasises the point which the hon. Gentleman has made and from which he is now passing. I should like to know if, at any time, we have discussed this matter with the Commonwealth or the sterling area, because the "Economic Bulletin" said:
  "If the sterling area countries, other than the United Kingdom, had kept the volume of their imports from North America at the 1938 level they would have had a surplus of over 300 million dollars instead of a deficit of 450 million dollars."
  I do not accept it as possible to keep at the 1938 level, but has there been any tendency to encourage them to keep at a reasonable level of purchases?
  Mr. Jay: Of course there has been a continuous tendency. As my hon. Friend knows, the main purpose of the Commonwealth Conference in July of this year was to agree jointly between all the sterling area Commonwealth countries that their imports of dollar goods should be reduced by 25 per cent.; and, of course, in order to enable some of them to do that it is necessary to supply British goods instead; that is precisely the point I was making. If all those factors are taken into account, and considered in relation to each separate negotiation, it becomes possible to reach some agreement as to how large a release should be made. The Chancellor stated clearly in the recent Debate that it is the intention of the Government to aim at curtailing these releases from now onwards, as each of the agreements is made from time to time, in order to attempt to reduce the strain on the productive resources of this country.
  The other main practical course open to us is to study this problem in general with the two dollar countries, the United States of America and Canada; and that we have undertaken to do in conjunction

  309
  with those two countries in the recent Washington communique. Those discussions will start very soon. Finally, I will answer my hon. Friend's question. In what spirit shall we approach those discussions? I would say that we shall approach those discussions with an entirely open mind, in the hope of reaching a solution which is in the best interests of all the countries concerned.
  8.51 p.m.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I feel that I must apologise to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Parkin) for the fact that the speech that I would have made has been answered already. I can only say that the answer has proved as unsatisfactory as I thought it would. This occasion is like many other occasions in that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Economic Secretary will never face the issue at all. They start by misquoting, as the hon. Gentleman did who tried to attribute to me the word "repudiate," although I have never used it in this matter; they then utter a certain number of pleasant platitudes, and sit down.
  I hope that this being the second Debate of this nature within eight days, we may at least impress the Government with one thing. It is that, whereas in the past it may often have been only hon. Members on this side of the House who have raised this question, now hon. Members opposite do so; and tonight three hon. Members opposite have spoken one after another on this subject. I hope that all the old taunts that have been thrown at this side of the House—and the Financial Secretary taunted us last week—to the effect that we would strive to drive a wedge between this country and the Commonwealth, that this was a Tory plot against the stability of the £, and all the rest of it, will now be forgotten, and that at last the Treasury will realise that this is a subject which commands respect in all quarters of the House, and that it has nothing to do with the machinations of the party machines.
  Let us go to the roots of the problem. The hon. Gentleman has made much play with all those negotiations which, he says, may or may not have to go on,
  310
  and all the rest of it, in order to achieve a settlement. He said that the Anglo-American Loan Agreement did not commit us to anything. But let us, for once, try to face the situation realistically. How did these debts arise? We are agreed, I think, that they arose because, during the war, we, as the principal partner in the sterling area, were determined that no financial consideration should stand in our way in bringing troops and material to bear at the crucial point at the right moment. That was the only thing we thought of. But at that time we did make it clear in the Coalition Government—and the hon. Gentleman knows it as well as I do—that there was to be no question, when the bill came to be settled after the war, that just because we brought those troops and that material to bear we should be the sole payers of it. If the hon. Gentleman is honest, the next time he speaks from that Box he will say that under the Coalition Government the express reservation was made that, at the end of the war, it should be up to us, whichever country might be the holder of these balances, to arrive, without any further palaver or discussion, at a just settlement of who provided what to whose benefit.
  Mr. Jay: By agreement.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the hon. Gentleman agrees, all I can say is that half his speech tonight—
  Mr. Jay: By agreement, I said.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: By agreement, certainly. Now let us go a stage further. The hon. Gentleman says that it was by agreement, but again, if he looks at the records in the Treasury, he will see that it was our undoubted right to submit counter-claims for what we had done. I have asked a great many Questions on this, and as far as I am aware the Government have never yet submitted a counter-claim, and have certainly never pressed for one to be accepted. Every time they have ridden off, as the hon. Gentleman has ridden off tonight, on this phrase "By agreement."
  If the hon. Gentleman looks back at what I have said, even tonight, he will see that it was the duty of His Majesty's Government—leaving aside the Anglo-American Financial Agreement and all

  311
  other considerations—whoever might be in power at the end of the war, immediately to submit counter-claims so that a just balancing of these debts might be effected. The fact is that His Majesty's Government have never done it. They have always ridden off it; they have always striven to make it appear as though, before we could do anything to settle these debts, we had to secure the agreement of the other countries concerned. I suggest that that is absolute nonsense; that we were the people who had the right to submit counter-claims; that we were the people who had the right to say what we thought was a just balance; and that, far from the other country having to be consulted and cozened in some way into an agreement, it was up to us to make the settlement, and up to us to see that a just decision was reached.
  Mr. Jay: I am not quite clear what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is arguing. Is he arguing that the agreement of the other country was not necessary to the settlement, or is he not?
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: That, I think, is to beg the argument.
  Mr. Jay: It is not.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It is. What I am saying is that as I understand it from what the hon. Gentleman has said tonight—just as he has often said before—we cannot enter into any settlement unless the other country will permit us to broach the subject.
  Mr. Jay indicated dissent.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: But that is what he has said tonight.
  Mr. Jay: I do not know how to make it clearer. I am merely saying that one cannot reach agreement between two parties unless both sides agree to the settlement.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Well, that at least is an advance for which I am very grateful. Up to now the hon. Gentleman has always said, "How can we settle these debts until the other country agrees to communicate with us and discuss a settlement?" I have asked, not only the Economic Secretary but his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor
  312
  of the Exchequer, what counter-claims have been submitted, and as far as I know I am still safe in saying that the Government have never been able to say that they have submitted one counter-claim.
  Mr. Jay: I do not want to interrupt too much, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that there was a very large counter-claim against India on account of various defence matters which was settled and duly paid, with agreement on both sides.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Again, if I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is riding off the one question that really matters. That particular claim had nothing to do with sterling balances, but was entirely concerned with static barracks in India, which were not necessary to us and which—as in the case of those in Egypt which were in exactly the same position—were paid for by the Government concerned. But that has nothing to do with this overriding question of sterling balances and their diminution, or adjustment, or scaling down, whichever term the hon. Gentleman chooses, in effecting a just settlement.
  Mr. Jay: I must make this clear. The balance was, in fact, written down as a result of acceptance of that claim, and therefore, clearly, it has been settled.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: No. They took over the physical assets. There was no writing down at all. They merely got physical assets for a certain sum of money. There was no acknowledgement that a sum of money should be written down because we had defended Egypt with the Eighth Army or India with the Fourteenth Army. All that happened was that His Majesty's Government sold barracks and other installations for sterling; but there was no acknowledgement in either case, either by the Indians or by the Egyptians, that they had in fact received services from His Majesty's Forces which they should recognise by acknowledging that they owed us money, resulting in a scaling down of the debts.
  Mr. Orbach: Because the Egyptians did not want to be saved.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: That may be so, but we certainly saved them. I was there at the time. The hon. Member may know certain Egyptians who did not want to be saved, but I knew quite a number

  313
  who did. I think that he would find it hard to prove that that was the official view of the Egyptian Government.
  Let me get back to the point that we were discussing. His Majesty's Government, from the very start, whether under the Anglo-American Loan Agreement or under what was said at the time of the Coalition Government during the war, were committed to the scaling down of these debts to a just balance. His Majesty's Government have not done a thing to try to implement either what they had the right to do under the agreements of the Coalition Government or the obligation to do under the Anglo-American Loan Agreement. They have not done a thing. The have merely released these balances.
  I think it is right that we should try tonight to go one stage further and see why they have done that. I am quite certain why they have done it. The hon. Member for Leek and the hon. Member for Stroud hinted at it when they said that there was in fact a certain amount of our exports which we could afford to allow to go without getting anything in return. The truth is much deeper. His Majesty's Government did not really care what they gave away or what they sold, provided they could maintain a facade of full employment. They were perfectly prepared to make releases, which would in fact mean that whatever it might cost the country in the future, there would be no unemployment in this country. That is all they have done.
  I think we have to allow, particularly in regard to India and other such countries, that the Government ' have enabled this full productivity to be maintained purely by releasing money in order to enable those countries to buy from us. They know that we get no return. If the Government are sincere in what they say about this crisis, why do they allow these unrequited exports to go abroad? They must know that it is far better to face the fact that we can only sell goods if we get something in return, rather than allow this to go on.
  I saw only yesterday a leaflet produced by Transport House dealing with productivity, and saying how much better off we are than we were after the First World War or, alternatively, in relation to Europe; but there is no other country in Europe that has the quantity of un-
  314
  requited exports that we have. There is no other country that bolsters up its production figures by shoving stuff abroad irrespective of whether it brings anything in return or not. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that at long last, when he gets three hon. Members on his side of the House rising to speak on this matter——
  Mr. Harold Davies: I do not want to be drawn into this argument as though I were putting forward this rather peculiar suggestion that I felt that we were doing this to maintain full employment at any cost. There is an important point here. This country has always been well-known for honouring its obligations, and I am not saying that we should blindly repudiate them. I am after a balanced and dispassionate discussion of the situation, and I do not want to be accused from the other side of being one of the people who would help to shatter both the sterling area and the British Empire and Commonwealth by doing what the hon. and gallant Member opposite is suggesting.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I was quoting the hon. Member for Stroud on this question of unrequited exports. So far as the question of honouring our obligations is concerned, I have dealt with that already, and no one is less anxious than I am that we should repudiate a debt. I have made it quite clear what we should do. We have not only the right but the obligation to make a just settlement.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: Does that mean repudiating a part?
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I hope the hon. Member will look at what I have said, because it would be foolish for me again to go over the ground. I will conclude in the hope that the next time we have a Debate on this subject the Government will try to give an answer to this simple question: why have they done nothing concrete about these debts, and why are they allowing unrequited exports, which are such a drag on our economy at the present time and can produce nothing in return?
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Webb: I should have preferred to catch Mr. Speaker's eye before the Economic

  315
  Secretary spoke, because I wanted to put one or two points to him, but I am glad to have this opportunity to take up one or two matters referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). I tried to understand why the hon. and gallant Member was almost simmering with indignation, but I could not find out why until his last few sentences. Apparently, this is an opportunity to accuse the Government again of deliberately doing this wicked thing of maintaining full employment. I do not accept the hon. and gallant Member's explanations at all, but even if it is right, surely it is not a bad thing for a Government to try to bring about full employment? Surely that is a desirable thing to do. For myself, I would not necessarily exclude all those things the hon. and gallant Member mentioned if, in fact, they were necessary to maintain the full working of our economy.
  The hon. and gallant Member's recollections of what the Coalition Government did may be better than mine. I was not a Member at that time, but I do not remember at all vividly the Government of that day entering into the kind of arrangements he has suggested. My recollection is that the House of Commons at that time wanted everything possible to be done to win the war. It is not at all clear that we entered into certain commitments, and I should like to hear something in support of the statement that we did, in fact, undertake to put in counter claims. In any case, the trouble about such arrangements is that subsequent Governments have to apply them in the circumstances of today.
  One of the troubles of this Government has been that it has had to fulfil far too many unfulfillable obligations and pledges, far too many pledges that have been inherently insoluble—I could give a whole range of things, of which this is undoubtedly one. I think that the whole arrangement about sterling balances was far too loose and careless, and that a complaint which could legitimately be made against the previous Government is that they did not enter into the specific arrangements mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, which would have been a reasonable thing to do. They could well have said, "We are helping you win
  316
  the war, and in return you will have to pay us for all the assistance we are giving you."
  That was not done, and this Government, therefore, had to face the situation in an atmosphere of reality, conscious of the political realities of the situation. It would be hopeless for us to make any impossible demands in negotiations of this kind, and it is to our credit that, in spite of our overwhelming burdens and difficulties, we have tried to reach an understanding that is workable. We must, in the end, come back to the fact that there must be agreement on the proposals put up; otherwise, what sanction should we have? What possible sanction does the hon. and gallant Member suggest is at our disposal to compel an unwilling partner? In the end, even the Conservative Party must face reality and the reality is the stark facts of the situation.
  I want to make one or two points for my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to think about and he may answer them at some other time. I think it is wrong to attempt to look at this problem of sterling balances by itself. It has to be considered against the whole background of our post-war obligations. I am glad to think that in previous speeches we related this problem to the graver problem of Defence expenditure. That is a very important element in the picture. We never hear any suggestions from the other side of the House that it would be reasonable to expect someone to come in and help us to carry some of this heavy Defence expenditure.
  That is a point we must have in mind and I believe the time is rapidly coming when this Government, or its successor, will have to come forward on an appropriate occasion and say that the problem is quite intolerable and cannot be sustained; that it is imposing on us a burden which we are not capable of sustaining. It should be related to the whole question of sterling balances.
  Mr, Geoffrey Cooper: Would my hon. Friend put in the same category the £3,000 million of these debts which are outstanding and are equally intolerable?
  Mr. Webb: I can see the point made by my hon. Friend. I say that the whole picture should be considered together. I

  317
  think it wrong to pick out a piece and to try to solve that part of the problem, because in that way we do not solve anything. I was in America during the Recess and I found the most appalling ignorance of the realities of our situation. I do not know why that is so. It may be that many have gone over there and forgotten their duty to their own country.
  There is an almost complete lack of understanding of the kind of sacrifices we are bearing today. Today I recorded talks to America in a radio station and had to stop in order that I could explain what unrequited exports are. The commentator said they have not the slightest idea of what unrequited exports are. They know what unrequited affection is but they do not know unrequited exports. In some way we have failed to show to them that so far from indulging ourselves with Marshall Aid, we have sacrificed much on the other side of the balance sheet and are making an enormous balancing contribution. In order to strengthen our effort I press the Economic Secretary to give to all sections in the United States some indication of the other side of the balance sheet—to tell them about unrequited exports and all the other things we are giving.
  I listened to the Economic Secretary on sterling balances. One point which he did not touch on was the type of goods we are now exporting in the form of unrequited exports. I have reason to believe that it is possible for us within the global amounts involved in this arrangement to help ourselves economically by sending other types of goods, or goods different from those which we are now sending in some cases. I think we are much too careless in considering that side of the question. If greater discrimination could be shown in the type of goods at our disposal it would be to our advantage.
  In general, I say that it really is not reasonable for Members on the other side of the House to suggest that this desperately difficult and delicate situation is somehow the responsibility of this Government. It is inherent in the situation that arose out of the war, and for my part I am satisfied that on the whole the approach of the Government towards a solution has been a good one and to the best advantage of this nation.

  EDIBLE FATS
  9.15 p.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I should be less than polite if I did not begin by thanking the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food for coming to the House especially as she has had to come some considerable distance. I am grateful to her, and I hope that we may at least start this Debate in a slightly more propitious frame of mind than on the last occasion when she replied to an Adjournment Debate in which I had spoken. We have had an interesting discussion on the matter of a debt of a sort. During the course of it the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) said that the Conservative Party must face realities. I hope that the right hon. Lady will assist me in that task this evening.
  I want to try to find out what is the real situation regarding a certain type of fat. We were discussing vegetable fats yesterday, and I think the situation was generally agreed to be far from satisfactory. Tonight I wish to speak about another type of fat, animal fat known under the trade name of tallow. But before I come to that I wish to speak about animal fats of all types, including butter, margarine and lard.
  I have been endeavouring to discover what is the total consumption per year in the country and from the official statistics—I have tried to keep entirely to them—I deduce that we consume 865,400 tons of butter, lard and margarine together. This year to the end of September we have consumed about 505,900 tons of these same three fats. In these same months we have produced at home 112,650 tons of butter, margarine and cooking fats, which are also compounded with other oils, and we have imported, too, 295,900 tons. That makes a total of home production and imports of 408,550 tons. But we have consumed 505,900 tons. Therefore, I take it that the balance must have come from last year's stocks and would have amounted to about 97,350 tons.
  I do not know what stocks were at the beginning of the year and I hope that the right hon. Lady will at least give me that figure—I understand why she cannot give the day to day and week to week stocks—so that we can then see how much has been available for the nine

  319
  months of this year compared with the same period last year. We have produced 35,750 tons more at home and imported 66,400 tons more from abroad. We have now available 102,150 tons more butter, lard and margarine than we had last year from what I can deduce from the official figures.
  I have calculated that, assuming that the population which receives a fat ration to be about 40 million, to honour the nine-ounce ration of these fats takes about 100,400 tons. To make a Christmas bonus of four ounces takes about 35,500 tons. That still leaves from that surplus of 102,150 tons 64,900 tons extra compared with what we had last year. And there is still three months of the year to go. But that figure of 64,900 represents about two-thirds of the total amount of fat which it takes to honour the nine-ounce fat ration of butter, lard and margarine.
  In other words, what I contend is that the right hon. Lady now has sufficient fat in hand to increase the basic ration very considerably straight away. I hope, if she accepts the figures I am putting forward—and I can assure her I have calculated them entirely from the official figures—that she will be able to announce at the end of this Debate that she is prepared, not merely to give a Christmas bonus, but also to increase the basic fat ration.
  Where does the imported fat come from? I do not propose to deal at any length with butter, save to say that Australia, New Zealand and Denmark are the main suppliers and that whereas in 1947 we obtained about 200,000 tons short of the million from Australia, in the first nine months of this year we have already very handsomely exceeded the million mark and that is about the same figure as in 1948. We have increased the amount from Denmark by 400,000 tons over 1947. The amount is slightly less in 1948. We do not import margarine at all, so far as I can gather, but we do make it mainly from imported fats. If I am wrong I hope that the right hon. Lady will correct me.
  Many of those imported fats come under the heading of tallow, although I think there are added other fats and oils of various other sorts, even vegetable oils in some cases. But there is a proportion
  320
  of edible fats, animal fats, and it is that subject on which I have questioned both the right hon. Lady and the Minister quite recently in this House. The best quality of that imported edible fat we obtain in considerable quantities from New Zealand, Australia and the Argentine. In 1948 we got about 7,500 tons from New Zealand and this year, according to an answer given me last week by the Minister, we have imported over 11,700 tons. That is a very big increase indeed. From Australia the increase is even bigger, although unfortunately the figures given me by the Minister cover the season from July to June instead of from January to September and therefore they are not a strict comparison. But whereas in the 1947–48 season we got 2,300 tons, in the 1948–49 season we had 9,600.
  I am only too glad to see this increased reliance which we are placing upon those two great Dominions, and we ought to say nothing tonight to make those two Dominions feel that we are not grateful to them for allowing us to have these fats. At the same time, I think it should be known that the prices we were paying to them were far in excess of the prices offered by practically every other country with the exception of the Argentine. I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to tell me what is the amount we have imported this year from the Argentine. Last year we got about 24,500 tons of edible fats from the Argentine and 6,300 tons of inedible fats, and if we have had anything approximating to the same amount as we had last year, then it does seem that we have had a very big increase in imports from those three countries which I have mentioned.
  I know that the Minister and the right hon. Lady do not like disclosing prices in this House, and therefore all I can do is to cite prices which I understand are being charged. Whether the right hon. Lady will be able to confirm them I do not know, but I hope that she will. I understand that in October, 1948, the Argentine prices went up to approximately £140 a ton—I use the word "approximately" because there is a considerable range of about 19 different grades of fat, and there is a variation of about £30 in the prices. At that time the United States were buying at prices well below £100, and eventually they fell

  321
  to below £50. In Australia the local controlled price was considerably lower than £100.
  In the case of one fat, which I mentioned to the right hon. Lady in a delightful conversation which she invited me to have with her in reply to one of my Questions, she paid £100 a ton when it would have fetched only £50 a ton in Australia itself. I believe that there are 19 set brands and that until October prices ranged between £121 and £96. After devaluation, which put up the prices in dollar area, the prices dropped to a range between £88 and £70. That is the information which I have got and I hope that the Minister will confirm or correct it.
  I am the first to want to give the Dominions a better price than other people. I think that we should always do that, but it seems to me that an increase of something above £50 over what was being offered by others is slightly excessive. At least—and here I am only too glad to say "Thank you"—it has secured for us a considerable increase in our imports of tallow.
  But having got that tallow, what did the Ministry do? There was one shipment of about 1,700 tons from the Argentine in February which was not offered to soap manufacturers until September. It was only offered to them then because it was no longer edible although it was imported as edible tallow. If we are to produce the finest quality white soap, rancid fat is not very much use, because while acidity can be eliminated from fat. rancidity cannot. It is possible to manufacture only pink soap with rancid fat, and that does not sell nearly so well in the dollar markets. I do not want to plead the case of the soap manufacturers tonight, because I understand that they have managed to make perfectly satisfactory arrangements, but I want to point out that rancid fat bought from a nondollar area will not be exportable to a dollar area where we should like to send it, because it will not be of a sufficiently high quality to be able to obtain a market.
  In yesterday's "Daily Express" Beachcomber commented on the Minister's definition of "technical purposes." I noticed that he fell into what is perhaps a natural error when he said that if edible fat, which is perhaps not quite so edible
  322
  as it was earlier, is manufactured into soap and other articles, then perhaps we shall next be told that soap is edible and that it has many useful vitamins. I am afraid that that is not true and that we must face the fact that fat imported at high prices for edible purposes and then stored for long periods by the Ministry, after which it is offered to the manufacturers of soap, will inevitably involve this country in some loss. That must be so. because the price for inedible fat is considerably below the price for edible fat.
  .I understand that this particular consignment was bought at about £102 per ton, and that it is now being offered at that price to the manufacturers, when the current price is round about £80 per tons for incoming fat of similar quality. I hope the right hon. Lady will be able to sell it, but it is obviously going to be extremely difficult to get rid of it. Perhaps she will be able to tell us tonight that she has got rid of it.
  Another consignment was offered to the Ministry last August at a price of £110 per ton, but was refused. Permission was given by the Ministry to offer that fat elsewhere, and the highest price that could be obtained was £50 in Rotterdam, which was not considered good enough by those who were trying to sell it. It was therefore re-offered to the Ministry with another parcel at the beginning of September, and the Ministry bought it at £110 per ton. It seems to me that that cannot be classed as very good business from the Ministry's point of view.
  There was the case of another 463 tons from New Zealand which came in during the summer, and, when I put this matter to the Minister on 7th November, the right hon. Gentleman denied that it had gone bad, though on the 14th November he admitted that it was of low keeping quality and was being offered for non-edible purposes. Obviously, that is no longer edible fat, although it was earlier; it was high quality mutton fat from New Zealand.
  I want to ask the right hon. Lady why so high a price was paid in comparison with American and European prices, and, secondly, how long the Ministry of Food hold the fat in store, because there seems to be evidence that, as a result of long storage, it is going bad and edible fat is being reduced to a condition in which it

  323
  is no longer edible. I also want to know why there was such a long delay in offering the two parcels I have mentioned for non-technical purposes, because I assume that some inspection is carried out of the edible fat which is kept in store, and it seems to me that, if the inspection was carried out properly its condition should be noted and the stock disposed of at once.
  Most of all, I want to know why the right hon. Gentleman does not increase the fat ration if the figures which I gave at the beginning of my remarks are correct. I once placed the right hon. Lady in the rô le of Justice, but tonight I want to warn the country that she may be directing her activities towards the rô le of "Queen Wenceslas" but delaying that rô le until a little bit nearer the General Election. I hope not; I hope she will not do that sort of thing, because I think it is very important, and I am sure she would agree, that we should increase as soon as we possibly can increase the basic ration of fats. I believe that this is one of the rations which have been so short that it has been noted by some people as being a greater hardship than anything save perhaps meat.
  If the right hon. Lady would cease to hold for quite so long what stocks the Ministry now has, and if she would get them on to the market, she would be doing not merely a good turn to the housewife but an immensely beneficial act to British industry, because I believe it is the fats in their rations which increase the stamina and energy of men to a degree only second to meat. Therefore, I hope she will do what she can to prevent any delay in distribution any longer than is absolutely necessary, because every day which she holds it back unnecessarily means output lost to British industry.
  9.34 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) agreed that he gave me short notice of this Debate, and, although he knows that I am only too happy to be here, even when I hear of a Debate on the Adjournment Motion at short notice, he must realise that I am placed at a great disadvantage when, in a Debate like this, he raises a matter which has no relation
  324
  at all to the original Question which he put down. That was answered by my right hon. Friend and was followed up by the hon. and gallant Gentleman giving notice that he would raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.
  This is the Adjournment, I understand, which follows the Question put down by the hon. and gallant Gentleman concerning the allegation which he made that during the summer certain tallow was landed in this country and became rancid—deteriorated—because it was not handled expeditiously. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was not satisfied with the answer given my right hon. Friend, and he said, quite rightly, that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment. Then, at very short notice this afternoon, the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked Mr. Speaker if he could have the second Adjournment. I naturally thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would raise the matter which he mentioned in the Question.
  It amazes me that he should come here tonight and, far from showing the courtesy that I had expected of addressing himself to the Question which we both had in mind, should raise the question of a Christmas bonus of fat, a matter, he must agree, far removed from rancid tallow. I have no doubt that his constituents would much prefer to read about a Christmas bonus of fat than about rancid tallow, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman must realise that I cannot possibly come here tonight and immediately disclose our stocks of fats, and, furthermore, speculate on increased rations. He must surely realise that only recently my right hon. Friend made a statement on Christmas bonuses, and that I cannot announce on an Adjournment Debate a week or two later, an increased Christmas bonus, in answer to his request.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me to be realistic. I am. I must charge him tonight with being completely unrealistic, and I ask him once more to address himself to the question of tallow, which, if I may say so with respect, has rather obsessed him during the last month or two. He has put Question after Question on that matter, and I can assure him that the officials in my Department, my right hon. Friend and myself have done our very best to answer him.

  325
  I suspect the source of his information—our knowledge of these things is very wide—but unfortunately the person who has given it to him has not given him the whole background of our tallow negotiations. There is nothing sinister about them, and nothing that we are anxious to hide. On the occasion to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred as, I think, the "delightful" or "charming" conversation he had with me behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, I once more tried to help him and to clarify his mind.
  I will tell him once more what is the position. I can only deal with general principles. He will realise that I cannot go into all the very detailed figures without consulting certain files which can, of course, only be found in my Department. We import our tallow from soft currency areas. He has mentioned again tonight the price in dollar areas—in the United States of America—and he has asked me to relate the prices which we are paying in soft currency areas to the prices he has quoted for the United States. But he must realise that the prices which he has quoted have no relevance to our purchases. How can they have?
  On the one hand, we are trying to save dollars, and therefore we are not concerned with the prices in the United States. He must also recognise that the United States are self-sufficient so far as fats are concerned. They certainly wish to export them, because at the moment there is a surplus owing to the price, and the United States certainly do not need to import fats. The dollar problem is one which affects many countries which need fats. So, of course, we are not concerned with dollar prices. What we are concerned with are the supplies in New Zealand, Australia, the Argentine and certain South American countries. We import 56 per cent. of our total imports from New Zealand, the principal source, 22 per cent. from Australia, and 22 per cent. from the Argentine and a few South American countries. We buy from Australia and New Zealand their total export surpluses at prices which we negotiate in each September for the ensuing year.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked before how these prices relate to the world price. There is no world price. The price can only be related to the supply position. He asked why the price fluctuates. I have told him before, and
  326
  will do so again, that we try to be very fair to our friends in the Dominions. The prices in the Argentine in the past have been much higher than the prices asked in Australia and New Zealand. We recognise that Australia and New Zealand, while making an adequate profit, have treated us very fairly, and at no time have we felt it wise, prudent or just to try to keep the Australians and New Zealanders down to the lowest level. That and the supply position are the reasons why the price has fluctuated.
  The shipments from Australia during the last few years have increased because the Australian meat programme has expanded, but during 1947–48 there was a drought, the production of meat decreased and the result was that the tallow imports decreased with it. In fact, we were only importing something like 2,300 tons during that year against 9,600 tons in 1948–49. The hon. and gallant Gentle-man asked me how much we had imported. I have given him the percentages; the total import during this year—that is, from 1st January to 30th September, 1949—was 11,777 tons; that is, of edible tallow from New Zealand, Australia, the Argentine and Uruguay.
  Now we come to what I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was going to address himself to with even more vigour, and that is the keeping quality of the tallow and whether it has deteriorated to such an extent that we could be charged with gross mismanagement. I do not think I am wrong in inferring that that is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks. Let me give him the figures. Of 11,777 tons of edible tallow which have come in this year, only 511 tons have been transferred to stocks of technical tallow. Technical tallow is tallow for soap making, leather work and so on. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would like me to break those figures down; 463 tons of this came from New Zealand, 24 tons from East Africa and 24 tons from Australia. He is quite right when he says that we sell inedible at £102 per ton, but if it is fit for edible use we sell at £104 per ton. So the hon. and gallant Member will agree that the loss is not very great.
  Edible tallow, of course, is not of uniform keeping quality; I am quite sure that his informant has told him that. A good quality edible tallow might keep

  327
  for six months, but a sub-standard tallow would not. Of course, we cannot always ensure that the keeping quality is as high as we should like. I might say—and I want to be quite fair to the hon. and gallant Gentleman because sometimes his figures are correct—that although only 511 tons of tallow have been transferred during this year, there would be some left over from the preceding year, about which I shall say something in a minute. The consignment that came during the summer about which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked in one of his Questions—was the one which came from New Zealand—arrived during the dock strike and was unduly delayed. I think that probably a month elapsed during which it was difficult to discharge the ships.
  But there has been other tallow of which we have tried to dispose—and again I think this is in the hon. and gallant Member's mind—which came to us under the Andes Agreement from the Argentine. That quantity was sub-standard and we refused to accept it as edible. I want the hon. and gallant Gentleman to understand that it came to us as sub-standard and we refused to accept it. We asked a firm to use some of this quantity for certain technical purposes and only one firm refused—probably for the reasons that the hon. and gallant Member quite rightly gave: that you can make coloured soaps out of some of this tallow which has deteriorated whereas you cannot make white soaps. This was not wasted; another firm took it and used it for very good purposes.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Lady give me the price?
  Dr. Summerskill: I have given the prices. We sell at £102 10s. when it is not fit for edible use and £104 when it is fit for edible use.
  That is the whole story. I will look at the hon. and gallant Member's speech
  328
  again tomorrow to see whether there are any other detailed figures which would help him, but I want him to go away from this Debate reassured that we are conducting this business on the best possible lines. It is a difficult business; we are dealing with a perishable commodity. We are dealing with our friends in soft currency areas—men who are well-known to us, whom we can trust and who do their best to supply this country with a good quality commodity.
  We cannot always anticipate a dock strike, however, and we cannot always anticipate that we might have a consignment of sub-standard tallow We have to deal with it, therefore, in a certain way. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will agree with me that the longer one lives the more one realises that there are always two sides to a question. He may be given a story about sub-standard tallow and somebody may say, "This shows how inefficient is the Ministry of Food; you must raise this in the House." But nobody tells him that sometimes substandard tallow reaches these shores from another country and we, as the purchaser, protest against it and make arrangements for other tallow to come here in exchange. That is what happened with the consignment the hon. and gallant Member mentioned. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will leave here happier tonight. I can assure him that if he is not satisfied. I am only too happy to help him.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Could the right hon. Lady give me one more figure? It was mentioned in a Question I asked earlier. What were the stocks at 1st January this year?
  Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid I could not give the hon. and gallant Member that figure.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes to Ten o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Greece (Sir J. Crocker's Visit)
  Greece (Sir J. Crocker's Visit)
  Headquarters Staff
  Headquarters Staff
  Overseas Tour (Duration)
  Overseas Tour (Duration)
  Medical and Dental Officers
  Medical and Dental Officers
  FIELD-MARSHAL VON MANSTEIN (TRIAL)
  FIELD-MARSHAL VON MANSTEIN (TRIAL)
  PROPOSED BOREHOLE, BARLASTON (ABANDONMENT)
  PROPOSED BOREHOLE, BARLASTON (ABANDONMENT)
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Pension Books (Re-issue)
  Pension Books (Re-issue)
  Regional Medical Officers (Referred Cases)
  Regional Medical Officers (Referred Cases)
  Sickness Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
NATIONAL SERVICE (QUANTITY SURVEYORS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (QUANTITY SURVEYORS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (QUANTITY SURVEYORS)
SCOTLAND
  Nurses' Salaries
  Nurses' Salaries
  Island of Stroma (Nurse)
  Island of Stroma (Nurse)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  U.S. Customs Procedure
  U.S. Customs Procedure
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  War Damage (Local Authorities' Records)
  War Damage (Local Authorities' Records)
  Sterling-Dollar Exchange Rate
  Sterling-Dollar Exchange Rate
  Income Tax and Surtax
  Income Tax and Surtax
  Currency Offences (Information)
  Currency Offences (Information)
  Australian Gifts
  Australian Gifts
  Government Securities (Value)
  Government Securities (Value)
  American Soldiers (Duty-free Cigarettes)
  American Soldiers (Duty-free Cigarettes)
  Distillers' Profits
  Distillers' Profits
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  New Building Work, Newport
  New Building Work, Newport
  Housing Work (Output)
  Housing Work (Output)
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Eastern Europe (Trade Agreements)
  Eastern Europe (Trade Agreements)
  Precious Stones (Re-export)
  Precious Stones (Re-export)
  Pottery
  Pottery
  Oilfield Machinery (Russia)
  Oilfield Machinery (Russia)
  Pressed Felts (Exports)
  Pressed Felts (Exports)
  Potteries (Building Licences)
  Potteries (Building Licences)
  Veneers
  Veneers
  Department's Staff
  Department's Staff
  Utility Furniture (Moquette)
  Utility Furniture (Moquette)
  Hire Purchase Order
  Hire Purchase Order
  Japan (Trade Agreement)
  Japan (Trade Agreement)
  Building Industry Distributors' Association
  Building Industry Distributors' Association
  Bottles and Jars
  Bottles and Jars
  Raw Cotton Commission
  Raw Cotton Commission
  LONDON CAB DRIVERS (HANDBOOK)
  LONDON CAB DRIVERS (HANDBOOK)
  CIVIL SERVICE (CAR ALLOWANCES)
  CIVIL SERVICE (CAR ALLOWANCES)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Saye and Sele—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.37 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Motion for the Second Reading of the British North America (No. 2) Bill [H.L.] over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
2.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, this is one of those times of great importance in the history of the British Commonwealth, which almost imperceptibly proceeds from one stage to another. In this case we are asked by the Government of Canada to accord to them some of the powers which are possessed by all the other members of the Commonwealth, but not, strangely enough, by Canada. It so happens that, when the Statute of Westminster was passed, at the express request of the Canadian Government an exception was made with regard to the British North America Act, with special reference to the division of powers between the Federal and Provincial authorities. As the result of that decision your Lordships have been asked at different times to agree
810
to certain legislation. But now the Canadian Houses of Parliament have submitted a Petition to His Majesty of which the Bill before you is the consequence and which will authorise the Canadian Parliament to amend the Canadian Constitution in relation to matters which are solely within the jurisdiction of that Parliament. That is a power which, except for the conditions to which I have already referred, is possessed by all other members of the Commonwealth—Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Ceylon and South Africa. It is only because of the circumstances I have mentioned that your Lordships are asked to take this action to-day.
I understand that early in the New Year there will be a conference between the Federal and Provincial authorities in Canada to consider matters which are semi-federal or semi-provincial in their character. So far as this is concerned, I am sure that your Lordships' House will be only too glad, and indeed anxious, to fall in with the wishes of the Canadian Parliament, and I hope you are willing to pass through all its stages this short measure which will be of great convenience to them. This occasion affords us an opportunity, of which I am sure we shall all be glad to avail ourselves, to express our gratitude to this oldest member of the Commonwealth overseas and our recognition of their splendid and loyal friendship and of their increasingly powerful help. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bi11 be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Addison.)
2.41 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this I am sure is not a matter upon which noble Lords in any part of this House will desire that there should appear to be any difference between the Parties and the State in this country. I therefore rise to say quite briefly that I entirely concur with what has been said by the Leader of the House, and that I associate myself fully with his remarks about the country and the people of Canada.
2.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, if there were ever a time when matters of this kind were the subject of controversy in your Lordships' House, that time has long since passed. The

811
questions dealt with in this Bill appear to be largely both an anomaly and a survival, and if it be the desire of the Canadian Government that they should now be removed we certainly should be fully willing to fall in with their wishes, associating ourselves as we do with the very well-merited tribute of gratitude which the Leader of the House expressed.
On Question, Bill read 2ª; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to the Resolution of November 17):
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Viscount Addison.)
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, as this is a very interesting moment, perhaps I may be allowed to add one word in the warmest support of what has already been said. It so happens that the constitutional development of Canada has been a subject to which I have professionally had to attend over a very long span of years. This moment is really both historic and moving. As the Leader of the House has said, Canada has a Constitution which, because of its antiquity, is in a tighter framework than the Constitutions of other members of the Commonwealth which have been more recently brought into being.
It is eighty years and more since the British North America Act was framed. Of course, it was not framed in this country. It was framed by Canadian statesmen, meeting at Quebec to devise a plan of federation, then for only part of what we now know as Canada, and it brought together the original Provinces under one Federal Government. When the Fathers of Federation at Quebec had finished their work, they sent Resolutions over here and asked the Imperial Parliament to express their conclusions in a Statute, which Parliament did in 1867, eighty-two years ago. At that date, it was thought desirable to create a Constitution which, to a very large extent, was rigid and could not be altered by any internal amendment. That is the reason why, as the Leader of the House no doubt
812
well remembers—for he has known of this happening on several occasions—at various intervals we have had before us Bills to make small changes in one way or another in the Act of 1867. But all that is archaic. It is now recognised that every one of these great members of the British Commonwealth enjoys just the same status and self-government as we enjoy in our own country, and each has the right, as we have, to alter its own Constitution. That has been prominently done in the case of Eire: the present Constitution of Eire is hardly recognisable as compared with the original Constitution. It has been done in the case of India. In the case of the Constitution of Australia, which was not drawn up until 1900, and of the Constitution of the Union of South Africa, which was drawn up in 1909, there are provisions which enable modifications in the Constitution to be made without referring to the British Parliament at all.
We are therefore doing a very interesting thing to-day. It is perhaps the final stage in the evolution of the complete autonomous self-government, in a constitutional sense, of the oldest of our Commonwealth members. Your Lordships will notice—though we did not, of course, need to have a Committee stage—that the language of Clause 1 of the Bill is such that it carefully preserves the rights of the Provinces of Canada, Canada, of course, is a Federation—we took part the other day in adding the last, the tenth of the Provinces, Newfoundland, to the Federation of Canada—and the Provinces are jealous of their rights as against a Dominion. That being so, your Lordships will notice that the language of the Bill very properly preserves matters coming within the classes of subjects assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces, and in the same way:
"… as regards rights or privileges by this or any other Constitutional Act granted or secured to the Legislature or the Government of a province.…"
That, I apprehend, refers more particularly to the special protection which is to be found in the British North America Act—in the cases of both Quebec and Ontario—relating to matters connected with religious education.
So, my Lords, while I apologise for taking up your time at this moment, I cannot help feeling that we are assisting

813
in what is both an historic and a romantic change. I need hardly say that I join fully with what has already been said as to the unanimous delight of the House in putting this last matter in order, so that Canada may enjoy, in the fullest measure, the right to reconstitute herself as she thinks proper. We do it with a firm assurance that, whether in peace or in war, the greater be the completeness of her freedom, the better will be the understanding between the Canadian people and our own.
On Question, Bill read 3ª, and passed.

ELECTION COMMISSIONERS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, this is another Consolidation Bill. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
2.48 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2 [Constitution of Commission]:
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment gives effect to the promise given to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, during the Committee stage of the Bill, that members of the Commission would hold and vacate office on terms to be prescribed in regulations made by the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out from ("with") to ("and") in line 16 and insert ("such terms as may be prescribed by or under regulations made by the Minister").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power of Minister to give directions to Commission]:
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to the clause:
"() As soon as may be after giving a direction under this section the Minister shall unless
814
in his opinion it is against the interests of national security so to do, cause a notice setting out the direction to be published in such manner as appears to him to be requisite for informing persons and bodies of persons concerned."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given by my noble friend, in which he accepted in principle, subject to looking at the wording and placing, of an Amendment moved by, the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney. The noble Lord wished to ensure that any directions which the Minister gave to the Commission should be made public at once, instead of waiting until the publication of the annual report which the Commission have to make to Parliament. This Amendment imposes a duty on the Minister as soon as may be after he has given any direction to give public notice of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [National Parks]:
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, but I am in a rather embarrassing position. My noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor was to have dealt with this Amendment and unfortunately it is not covered among the papers which I have.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, perhaps I may be able to help the noble Lord. This Amendment is to clear the ground for a new clause after Clause 83 for the protection of agriculture and forestry. The noble Lard will remember that we had a long discussion on subsection (4) of Clause 5, and on the extension of the protection which it gives, but only to national parks. We are anxious to extend that protection and also to have members with special knowledge of agriculture and forestry on the National Parks Commission. As a result of that discussion, and of further useful discussions which have been held since the Committee stage, we have arrived at what seems to me to be a satisfactory compromise—namely, to omit subsection (4) of Clause 5 and then have after Clause 83 a general instruction to safeguard the interests of agriculture and forestry.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl. I understood that this was a drafting Amendment, and that it is preliminary to a major Amendment to be moved later. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [General duties of Commission in relation to National Parks]:
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, a similar Amendment to this was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, but was withdrawn on the understanding that my noble friend would look into the point raised. This Amendment is the result. It has the same effect as Lord Merthyr's Amendment, but the wording has been revised. The effect is that the Commission will be required, where they think it appropriate, to make representations to other Ministers, as well as to the Minister of Town and Country Planning, about the progress made in accomplishing the purpose of the park. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("to local authorities or to") and insert ("or, where the Commission deem it appropriate, to any other Minister or any local authority or").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, this Amendment is satisfactory, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for moving it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved to leave out paragraph (c) of subsection (3). The noble Lord said: My Lords, Your Lordships will remember that on Committee stage, as a result of a Division, an Amendment was carried which I am now anxious to amend. The new subsection imposes on the Commission a duty to make recommendations to the planning authorities about the exercise of their powers to make bylaws under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, supported by several noble Lords, asked for more than this, but this Amendment would make it a duty for the Commission to tell authorities what sort of bylaws they should make. In so far as the Commission thought the bylaws should
816
be uniform in all national parks, it would be their duty to say so. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has put down an Amendment to Clause 89 dealing with a similar question, and I suggest that it would be more appropriate to discuss this point when we come to Clause 89. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, leave out from ("purposes") to end of line 34.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I want an extension of this power to areas other than the national parks, but we can deal with this matter later.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, at end insert—
("(d) to make to such authorities, as respects the exercise in relation to National Parks of the powers hereinafter conferred on them to make byelaws, recommendations as to the matters in respect of which such byelaws should be made, either generally or in the case of any particular Park").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (4) (c) after the first "development" to insert "or use." The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who is unable to be here this afternoon, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, after ("development") insert ("or use").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount has seen me privately and stated that all he required was some assurance from the Government that what he had in mind was covered. I am now authorised to give that assurance, that any changes in the use of land would be development. That is all the noble Viscount asked for.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment gives effect to a promise given to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. I think he will find it acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 38 and insert—
("() to notify to the Minister, or where the Commission deem it appropriate to other Ministers, the general nature of the action which will in the opinion of the Commission need to be taken as respects land in a National Park for any of the purposes specified in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section, in cases where it appears to the Commission that the Minister in question should be informed thereof before considering future proposals for the development of the land for other purposes; and").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment; it is acceptable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.58 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:
Information to be given by Public Authorities
". Notwithstanding the provisions of section thirty-five of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, a local authority or a statutory undertaker proposing to carry out any development in an area designated as a national park or which they have reason to believe is intended to be designated as such, shall, not later than the date upon which an application is made by them for an authorisation of a Government Department in respect of such development, inform the Commission in writing of the nature of such proposed development."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a modified form of an Amendment I moved on Committee stage and withdrew. We had a long discussion on this matter and I do not think it would be right for me to weary your Lordships with a repetition of what was then said. The point is simple. If this machinery is to work smoothly it is most desirable that the National Parks Commission should as soon as practicable be made aware by authorities, such as the Electricity Board, who are likely to be undertaking developments in an area which may in the near future become a national park of their proposed development. One or two difficulties arose in regard to my original Amendment. For example, it laid down
818
a period of ten years for the designation of the area as a national park, and it left undefined the stage when a development authority should approach the National Parks Commission. This Amendment states definitely that the point at which the National Parks Commission should be approached is the date:
"upon which an application is made by them"—
that is, by the Electricity Authority, or whatever authority it may be—
"for an authorisation of a Government Department in respect of such development.…"
That is perfectly well defined. One point I regret is that have omitted any reference to any Government Departments. That means that Government Departments will be free to go on to areas that will he designated as national parks. That is a weakness. However, I think your Lordships will agree that this Amendment is an improvement upon the previous one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right in saying that a similar Amendment was moved on Committee stage, and I agree that this is a modification of that Amendment. However, I regret that even in its modified form I am unable to accept the Amendment. As your Lordships know, under Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, local authorities and statutory undertakers carrying out any development may get a deemed planning permission from the Minister responsible for the type of undertaking concerned—for example, the Minister of Fuel and Power might authorise the erection of a power station, or the Minister of Health the building of local authority houses. This is a matter merely of simplifying the administrative machinery, and does not mean that no planning permission is required.
The noble Earl laid some stress on the question of the time at which the Commission ought to be made aware of the possibility. When the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Minister of Health has come to a decision, the Minister of Town and Country Planning will at that point have an opportunity of consulting

819
the Commission, if they are not already sufficiently aware of what is afoot. I am authorised to say that he will do so in all cases where the development has any material effect on the park. On the point regarding the local authorities, I may say—and this may be some inducement to the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment—that the local authorities and statutory undertakers will, in their own interests, recognise the value of early consultation with the Commission, for this reason: they may well proceed with their project only for it to prove futile because the Minister of Town and Country Planning may then refuse to give permission. We feel that there is no danger, and that the noble Earl need have no worry with regard to the Commission not being brought into play at an early date. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I am still not happy about the Electricity Authority. It is important that before the Minister of Town and Country Planning makes up his mind whether or not to refer a matter to the Commission or to take action on a proposition coming from the Minister of Fuel and Power, the National Parks Commission should be consulted, and that the Minister should have their views on any particular new undertaking. It is vital for these highland areas, with the growth—I may say, the justifiable growth—of hydro-electric power stations, that they should be so planned. This would not only be in the interests of the economy of the Electricity Authority, but would also be in accordance with the desiderata of the national parks. Once the Minister of Fuel and Power has given sanction to one of these big undertakers to proceed with a scheme, then there is great difficulty in getting it altered. The important thing is to prevent that happening before the scheme gets under way. As I see it, this Amendment safeguards that position, and I had hoped that the Government would accept it.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, may I say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that when a Government Department have decided on their policy regarding these matters, they will at that point inform the Minister of Town and Country
820
Planning before they proceed further. The Minister will then discuss it with the Commission. I feel that the noble Lord's point is met in that way.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am a little unhappy about this matter. The Government have none some way in meeting us on a number of points, and I am sure that no noble Lord wishes to divide on any Amendment now before us. At the same time, a number of noble Lords are genuinely worried about this point. We have had so many discussions between the Committee and the Report stages that I hesitate to make the suggestion of further discussion. However, I wonder whether we could not talk this matter over again between now and Third Reading. On that understanding, I would be willing to withdraw the Amendment. I feel sure the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, appreciates the point. It is a real point. It is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said, to avoid getting into the position where people have their plans prepared and have taken their stand, because it is very difficult to get out of such a situation once it is created. We know that the Hobhouse Report proposed a number of areas for national parks, and it is unlikely that all those areas will be scheduled at once. Therefore, there are a number of well-defined areas which, though they are almost certain to be national parks in the future, will not be scheduled for some time. I would impress upon the noble Lord that this is an important point, and I would ask him to look at this again.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I will certainly agree to that, but on this occasion I cannot give any undertaking. The discussions between the Committee and the Report stages were so fruitful that I will see what can be done between now and Third Reading.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lord, your Lordships will forgive my pointing out that we are now on the Report and not the Committee stage. It will be as well if we all bear that in mind.
Clause 8:
Arrangements for administration of functions of local planning authorities as respects National Parks.
(2) Where a National Park lies partly within the area of one local planning authority and as to the rest within the area of one or more other such authorities, there shall be a joint planning board constituted under section four of the Act of 1947 for a united district consisting of the area of the Park:
Provided that where, on the representation of any of the said authorities, the Minister is satisfied after consultation with the Commission that by reason of any special circumstances it is expedient so to do for securing efficient administration in the Park, he may direct that as respects all or any of the authorities the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not have effect unless and until the direction is revoked.
(6) Not less than one third of the members of—

(a) a joint board or joint advisory committee constituted for an area being or including the whole or any part of a National Park, or

(b) a planning committee, or sub-committee of a planning committee, for such an area, where no joint board is constituted for the area,

shall be persons appointed in accordance with the following provisions:—
(iii) in any case the persons appointed shall be persons nominated by the Minister, after consultation with the Commission;
Provided that if in any particular case the Minister, with the agreement of the Commission, so determines, this subsection shall have effect as if for the words "one third" there were substituted the words "one quarter."
3.7 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to omit the proviso to subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for introducing a controversial subject at this late stage of the Bill, but it is one of such importance to a number of people that I feel I should not be doing my duty if I neglected it. If your Lordships will look at subsection (2) of Clause 8 you will see that the Bill seeks to carry out one of the most important recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee. But the Bill then goes on, at line 4 of page 7, to take away all the good of that subsection. The Bill there provides a loophole through which the Minister can escape, if he sees fit so to do, and so, in effect, nullifies this important subsection.
I am aware that there is considerable disagreement about this matter, but I repeat that it goes right against one of the fundamental recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee. Paragraph 73 of the Hobhouse Report says this:
"For the purpose of planning, each National Park should be treated as a single geographical unit, to be planned in accordance with the Commission's policy and under their general guidance."
Then paragraph 75 says the scheme provides:
"… that each National Park should be constituted as a 'united district' for the purposes of planning and that a local Park Committee should he established as its statutory local planning authority."
Those who have been thinking and dreaming of national parks for a decade, and more, must be bitterly disappointed by the Government's attitude in this Part of the Bill, and at their complete overthrow of this recommendation of the Hobhouse Committee. If there is a national park extending over as many as five counties—and there are two proposed parks which spread to five counties—how is it to be administered except by one authority? We all know—it is notorious—that local authorities do not work well together voluntarily, unless there is some supervising authority to compel or cajole them to do so, and I am sure they will not do so in this case. I do not want to labour this point, but I felt it right to bring it before your Lordships' House and to point out this complete disagreement between this Bill and the Report of the Hobhouse Committee. In my view, unless this Amendment, or something like it, is carried, one of the main recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee will be completely neglected, and there is a serious chance that the national parks, on this count alone, will not be a success. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 4, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 10.—(Lord Merthyr.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not be persuaded by my noble friend, Lord Merthyr, because I feel that, at any rate in my county of Sussex, a compulsory joint board would work a good deal worse arid produce worse results than the set-up which we now have. If we carried out my noble friend's suggestion in the spirit, as well as in the letter, I suppose we should have

823
a single committee to cover a long narrow strip of land about eighty miles long and from five to ten miles broad. To produce sufficient local knowledge upon a representative committee a very large body would be necessary, and probably the most convenient place for them to meet would be in London. But over and above that, on the southern side of the national park—if it followed the suggestions of the Hobhouse Committee—you would be leaving a kind of narrow rim of very highly developed coastline. That, I suppose, would have to be administered separately and by other officials. In other words, having agreed in 1947 that planning areas should not be smaller than the areas of counties we should here be dividing the county up again and, I think, in a highly inconvenient way. All the local authorities in Sussex are against this proposal, and I feel sure that it would result in a widespread attempt to evade the spirit of the provision. For these reasons I hope your Lordships will leave the Bill as it is, and will leave a certain discretion to the Minister. I have no doubt that in some national parks it is essential to have joint boards, but having regard to the extraordinary variety, in shape, size and nature of the country which is included in the proposed national parks, we ought to give a discretion to the Minister. I do not know what a Minister is for unless he has powers of discretion. My noble friend Lord Merthyr is an enthusiast on national parks, but I think he must have some regard to the question of planning as a whole, and that he must consider the bits that would be left over by his suggestions. I am sure that if he considered this question of Sussex he would come to the conclusion that the problems of the coastal belt areas are far more difficult than any likely to arise with the proposed national park areas.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that when we reached Clause 8 on the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, fortunately or unfortunately, was in the Chair, and we got through that clause without much trouble. I am only sorry that he is not in the Chair at this moment! However, I regret that I am unable to accept this Amendment. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has given satisfactory reasons
824
for my refusal. Your Lordships will remember that when the Bill first appeared in another place the clause dealing with this matter was phrased in far wider terms than the present clause. The Minister himself agreed to what I consider were words very restricting upon his power. The clause is now so phrased that the Minister can dispense with a joint board only in cases where he is satisfied that the park will be more efficiently administered without a board than with a board; it is not merely a question of his being satisfied that it will be no worse. I should have thought that that would have satisfied even the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. If the Minister is satisfied in that manner, surely he ought to have the power to do it. It may be that, in some areas or for some reason, a joint board will prove to be undesirable, and it is felt that it is much better to have this reserve power in the Bill just in case it needs to be exercised. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.18 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR had given notice of several Amendments in subsection (6) (iii), of which the first was to leave out "Minister" and insert "Commission." The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I take these three Amendments together? The object of this group of Amendments is to give a little more power to the Commission and a little less to the Minister. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said that I ought to be satisfied with leaving a discretion to the Minister, and in his last speech, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, made much the same point. But we have to look a long way ahead. There will be a great many Ministers of Town and Country Planning, and it is not an easy thing to know what will satisfy the existing Minister in, say, twenty years time from now. With respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, I believe that it is permissible to insert in an Act of Parliament something to guide or restrict the Minister, as the case may be. If the Minister is to be given complete discretion it is hardly necessary to have a Bill at all. This Amendment is a simple one. It suggests merely that the Commission

825
should have the duty or power of nominating the few members of the local planning committees who are appointed on a national basis. Instead of having the Minister appointing "after consultation with the Commission," I propose to put it the other way round and let the Commission appoint "after consultation with the Minister." After all, the Commission have few powers and duties under this Bill, and I think this is a small crumb which might be left to them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has made the intention behind the Bill quite plain—namely, that the Minister, in his official capacity, should undertake this duty. The intention also is that this shall be done in consultation with the Commission. No one could expect any Minister to undertake this kind of job without consultation with those who may advise him as to the best type of person to appoint, but there is something else. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has overlooked it; I know that he lays great stress on this. It seems to me, and I am sure that it will seem to the noble Lord, that for the Commission to submit the names to the local planning authority rather than to the Minister would be a difficult matter for the local authority. They are an elected body, and I know local authorities well enough to know that they will take much more in the way of suggestions of this kind from the Minister than from a non-elected, appointed Commission. I give an undertaking that the Minister does intend consulting with the Commission before coming to a decision; and he will be guided by them. In the circumstances, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will not press his Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to omit the proviso to subsection (6). The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (6) starts by saying:
826
"Not less than one-third of the members of—

(a) a joint board or joint advisory committee … shall be persons appointed in accordance with the following provisions. …"

Then, at the end of the subsection, comes another of these provisos which I should like to see eliminated. In effect, the proviso leaves it to the discretion of the Minister to alter the one-third to one-quarter if he thinks fit. We do not know what future Ministers are going to do, say or think about this Bill; and as we are trying to lay down immutable rules for national parks, it seems to me that if we say that the number shall be one-third and then give the Minister power to alter it to one-quarter, we are, in effect saying that the number shall be not less than one-quarter, which, in the minds of many people, is too small. The Hob-house Committee recommended one-half. There has been a good deal of argument about this matter in another place, and I did not move an Amendment which I had put down at an earlier stage to restore the one-half. But I think it is going too far to reduce the one-third to a quarter.
Another important recommendation of the Hobhouse Committee was that there should be an even balance on the planning committees between national and local members; and they recommended that the scales should be tipped by the inclusion of a nationally-appointed chairman. Here again, under this Bill that important recommendation has been thrown to the winds by the Government. The Bill provides that in all cases, there shall be a local predominance in the matter of membership. If we are going to have national parks I do not think it is asking too much to say that at least one-third of the people who manage them should be nationally appointed. If it is asking too much, why call them national parks at all? As a matter of fact, I maintain that under this Bill there will not be any national parks. The title is a misnomer. We shall have county council parks and nothing more. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 24, leave out from ("Provided") to the end of line 27.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I am sure that you will be impressed by the

827
impartiality shown by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. At one moment, he is on the side of the Minister, and at another on that of the Commission. At present he is on the side of the Commission. Let it be clearly understood that the Minister was very reluctant to accept the one-third. He accepted it conditionally only, the condition being that he could, by agreement with the Commission, make up the loss where he could not find enough people of the right quality. Your Lordships are aware that in some cases the number on a local planning authority may be thirty or more. Without reflecting on one's fellow countrymen one must say that in many cases, the work is of an expert kind and there may not be found ten or twelve suitable persons to do it. It is only in such cases—and in no others—that the Minister will make up the loss. I cannot believe that your Lordships will agree that, if it is physically impossible for the Minister to find the right type of people in the numbers required, he should not himself make up the loss. In the circumstances, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will not press his Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord says, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Duty of local planning authority to formulate, and carry out, proposals for the purposes of s. 5 (1)]:
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved to add to the clause:
"() Where by reason of the exercise of a local planning authority's powers for the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section five of this Act, any person incurs or is likely to incur any loss, damage or expense in respect of buildings (other than dwelling-houses) used for the purposes of general farming operations or the cultivation or felling of trees to which he would not otherwise have been put or the value of an interest in land of any person is or is likely to be depreciated he shall he entitled to receive from the local planning authority compensation in respect thereof."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is very similar to an Amendment which I moved on Committee stage. On that occasion the Minister, although I think he agreed with the purpose behind my Amendment, said he thought it was too wide. I have, therefore, narrowed it by the insertion of the words:
828
"… in respect of buildings (other than dwelling-houses) used for the purposes of general farming operations or the cultivation or felling of trees …"
I hope that the noble Lord will now be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I appreciate the modification made by the noble Lord. He and I have discussed this matter at some length. I much regret that I am unable, in spite of those discussions, to accept the Amendment, even as modified, for the reason that it is considered that the points which the noble Lord wishes to cover are already met in the Bill and under the 1947 Act. Your Lordships will appreciate that an Amendment recognising the importance attached to agriculture and forestry has already been carried, and others are to be submitted later to effect the same result. We are anxious that forestry and agriculture should be protected under the Bill so far as possible, but this is an Amendment which requires careful attention. I have discussed it with many people and, as I understand it now, it is intended to apply only to cases where the value of land is depreciated as a result of
"loss, damage or expense in respect of buildings (other than dwelling-houses) used for the purpose of general farming operations or the cultivation or felling of trees. …"
And it is intended to apply only where this loss would not have been suffered but for the existence of a national park in that area.
Now let us look at the ways in which the planning authority's action could involve a farmer in such loss in respect of his farm buildings. Take, first, the authority's powers under this Bill. They might, perhaps, convert it into a youth hostel. If they did, they would have to pay the farmer for it. So that point is covered. It may be that because an area is in a national park there will be more new paths created and more land will be made subject to access. I need not tell your Lordships that neither of these steps is likely to involve damage or loss to farm buildings. A new path would certainly go round a farm building: it could not go through it, though a path might be diverted to avoid the building. Even then, if buildings were comprised in an

829
access order, they would automatically be excepted from its provisions.
There is another aspect of the matter on which I have sought advice. It is possible that, in the interests of amenity, a planning authority might attempt to exercise a stricter control over new farm buildings than they had done in the past, and that the conditions imposed on such development might involve more expense to the farmers. I think I am right in assuming that Lord Carrington's Amendment, although it does not refer to proposed buildings, is intended to deal with a situation where the farmer incurs additional expense in erecting buildings. I can see from the words which he has used in this Amendment that the noble Lord has already referred to the Third Schedule of the Act of 1947. The definition of "farm buildings" which he uses is lifted straight from the fourth paragraph of that Schedule. I do not know whether the noble Lord also referred to Section 20 of that Act. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, might consider doing so, if he is going to intervene in the debate later, because the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has reminded us that this is Report stage and we shall need to make all the points we wish to in the one speech. If the noble Earl would refer to Section 20 of that Act, he will see that his point is already met in that section—at least, that is the advice I am given—and that is in regard to the country as a whole, and not merely for national, parks, a point which I know will appeal to your Lordships.
The noble Lord's Amendment refers to depreciation in the value of an interest in land by reason of the exercise of the local planning authorities' powers. Section 20 deals with cases where permission to develop has been refused, or granted subject to conditions, and where it is shown
"that the value of the interest of any person in the land is less than it would have been if the permission had been granted, or had been granted unconditionally, as the case may be."
The same section provides that in those cases
"the local planning authority shall pay to that person compensation equal to the difference."
I put it to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that this section meets the intention
830
of this Amendment. That being so, I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I am not quite clear about this matter. I would like to ask the noble Lord this question. Suppose there were a barn which the owner wished to convert into a cowhouse. If it were suitable for that purpose, and the owner were prevented by this Act from so converting it, would this section provide him with compensation?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Yes.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, there has been some correspondence on this matter recently in The Times One of the greater authorities on art has been writing about the colour green, if I recollect aright. The property owner well knows that certain colours are far longer lasting and therefore cheaper in the end than other colours. If a property owner is forced to paint all his property a particular colour which happens to suit the local authority's taste and yet is a colour which has not the lasting properties of the colour that he would like to use, is he entitled to any compensation for that? Because otherwise a grave loss falls upon him.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Lord has gone some way to giving us an assurance that under Section 20 of the Town and Cot retry Planning Act compensation is in fact payable for extra expense incurred as a result of instructions from a planning authority. Reading through Section 20, it appears to me, as an extreme layman in legal matters, that that section does go some way in this direction. Then, unfortunately, one turns to the Third Schedule, and in paragraph 4 of that Schedule one reads that exception is made in
"improvement or alteration of dwellinghouses or of buildings used for the purposes of market gardens, nursery grounds or timber yards."
Apparently, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is prepared to put up with the exception of dwelling-houses—I do not think he likes it but he is prepared to make that concession in order to obtain agreement. But market gardens, nursery grounds or timber yard;—and, after all, we are talking about areas where a certain amount of timber work may be proceeding—are excepted from Section 20. If the noble Lord were prepared to say that

831
between Report stage and Third Reading he would consider giving us some assurance, or, if necessary, inserting something in the Bill that would include those items in the protection already given by Section 20 for other purposes, then I think my noble friend Lord Carrington and others might feel a little happier.
I would impress on the noble Lord that this is a matter which might land one in considerable expense. I have personal knowledge of a beautiful old Sussex barn, parts of which have really gone, and it will not go on standing the weight of a tiled roof. The owner, with great regret, has had to come to the decision to put on a lighter roof of corrugated iron. It is a horrible thing to do but the alternatives are either to pull that barn down or else spend hundreds of pounds upon it. Is that owner now to be forced to spend that extra money on it? That might be desirable in an area to be designated as a national park. The question then is, who is to pay for it? That is rather digressing from the point, but if the noble Lord can agree to give us a full assurance that he will consider the inclusion of timber yards, market gardens and nursery grounds in the assurance that he has given us about Section 20, perhaps Lord Carrington will be prepared to consider withdrawing his Amendment.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the answer is "No." Experience in another place is a good thing. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in a pleasant roundabout way suggests the widening of this Amendment. It is with the Amendment on the Marshalled List that I have to deal. I am very sorry that I cannot give any assurance at all on the lines suggested by the noble Earl. What I stated regarding the Amendment should meet, and I think does meet, what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had in mind. Though I can give no assurance on this point, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, can the noble Lord opposite tell me, from his experience, whether my point about the forcible painting of buildings of a certain colour is or is not covered anywhere in the Bill?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Not at the moment.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, for the present I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12:
Provision of accommodation, meals, refreshments, camping sites and parking places
12.—(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of a National Park may make arrangements for securing the provision in their area (whether by the authority or by other persons)—

(a) of accommodation, meals and refreshments (including intoxicating liquor);

(b) of camping sites; and

(c) of parking places and means of access thereto and egress therefrom,

and may for the purposes of such arrangements erect such buildings and carry out such work as may appear to them to be necessary or expedient:
Provided always that an authority shall not exercise the power conferred by this subsection (other than a power of erecting buildings or carrying out work), to provide accommodation, meals and refreshment, unless it appears to the authority that no other person is able and willing to provide, in a manner which in the opinion of the authority will be satisfactory, the facility or service for the provision of which the power is exercisable.
3.38 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in the proviso to subsection (1) to omit all words after "Provided" and to insert:
"that a local planning authority shall not under this section provide accommodation, meals or refreshments except in so far as it appears to them that the facilities therefor are inadequate or unsatisfactory, either generally or as respects any description of accommodation, meals or refreshments, as the case may be."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to put into effect a compromise which I suggested during the discussions which we had in Committee on Clause 12. I hope your Lordships will be able to accept it in the spirit in which it is offered. Of course, it was never the intention of the Government that, when adequate accommodation and facilities were available, the local planning authority should go into the field and provide other accommodation and facilities. I should like to repeat what I said during the discussions that we had. I hope that these words will be reported, because my right honourable friend feels

833
that it is very important that those people who are living and earning their livelihoods in these areas should be well aware of the Government's intentions in respect of this matter. Where there are facilities already being provided by the people who are living in the particular areas, it is the Government's view that they should be respected and used. They are usually the best facilities that there can be for arrangements of the kind which the Government have in mind for the national park areas. I am sure all your Lordships will agree that nothing is more pleasant than a farmhouse tea or, indeed, accommodation in a farmhouse in the type of district over which a national park will extend. It has always been the intention of the Government that these facilities should, in fact, be used.
The Amendment makes it perfectly clear that the planning authority shall not provide facilities themselves where they consider that the existing facilities are adequate. Your Lordships carried an Amendment which not only provided for this but also for the case where there were no facilities, and the question was whether they should be provided by private enterprise or the local authority. We feel that we cannot go so far as that, but we do suggest that the substance of the speeches which were made in Committee dealt with existing facilities; that that is safeguarded by this Amendment; and that this is a satisfactory compromise which your Lordships will be able to accept. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, leave out from ("Provided") to end of line 12, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord and the Minister very much for the way in which they have met us with this Amendment. As the noble Lord has said, it is perfectly true that it does not go quite so far as the Amendment that we wanted, but it goes a long way, and we should be satisfied with it. There is only one doubt that is left in one's mind. The words as drafted suggest that it is purely a matter of existing facilities. It might be the case that some local tea house or public-house was contemplating a new building which would satisfy a new demand, and one is not clear whether that would he taken into account. I gathered
834
in private discussions that facilities of that character that were in early and bona fide contemplation would, in fact, be covered by these words. I do not know whether the noble Lord is allowed to rise again to assure me on that point. If so, I shall be glad of his assurance.
LORD CHORLEY: With the permission of your Lordships, I think I am allowed to give the assurance for which the noble Earl has asked, and I am very glad to do so.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think this will be a satisfactory compromise. One must remember that when it comes to a question of justices' licences, it is highly unlikely that licensing justices would give another complete licence if the holder of an existing licence were willing to provide an extra room to give additional accommodation. I think there is that additional safeguard. With the indication that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has just given, as to context in which it is hoped the Amendment will be construed, I think it goes a long way to meet us, and I, too, am much obliged to the Government for putting it down.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved to add to the clause:
"() A Justices' licence granted under the Licensing Acts, 1910 to 1949, for the sale of intoxicating liquor in correction with the provision of accommodation, meals and refreshment under this section shall only authorise the sale of such liquor for consumption with a meal and a local planning authority shall in carrying on any activities under this section be subject to all enactments and rules of law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor in like manner as other persons carrying on the like activities."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel we are coming on. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in moving the last Amendment said that nothing was more pleasant than a farmhouse tea. I agree with him. But on a previous occasion, I would remind him, he eulogised the pleasantness of a glass of beer. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Bill as at present drawn leaves the door wide open not only to restricted licences for liquor consumption with meals, but to full justices' licences without restriction. I have no desire to detain your Lordships this afternoon, as I argued this case at sonic length on Committee stage. I would, however, remind

835
your Lordships that on that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, replying for the Government, based his objection to this Amendment on the plea that it would penalise the rambler "who carries his food with him in his rucksack." The noble Lord sought to wring our withers about "the rambler who has been walking under a hot July sun for many hours" with a well-nigh unquenchable thirst. The noble Lord might never have heard of the superfluity of licences already in existence, or of tea and coffee and soft drinks, which are so easily obtainable throughout the countryside! Was there ever a more flimsy pretext for providing additional facilities for promiscuous alcoholic drinking? Ramblers are not usually inarticulate as to their requirements. I challenge the noble Lord to produce any evidence for such a demand. Is it not rather a case of providing facilities to create a demand than to meet a demand?
By far the largest organisation catering for ramblers is the Youth Hostels Association. At the end of 1948 they had 228,069 members in England and Wales alone; and they provided for those members 282 hostels, containing approximately 13,000 beds. Nearly a million and a quarter bookings were made in 1948 for overnight accommodation in these hostels. The rule of the Association is strictly that no intoxicants shall be taken into any one of these hostels, and they are all unlicensed. Other organisations, such as the Co-operative Holidays Association and the Holiday Fellowship, also have a rule forbidding intoxicants in their holiday centres. Then there is the Workers' Travel Association, with which so many members of His Majesty's Government are honourably associated. The Prime Minister, Sir Stafford Cripps, Mr. Herbert Morrison, and my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, are all members of the Council of that Association, and associated with them are many others, including members of your Lordships' House and Professor Gilbert Murray. The Association have catered for ramblers for over a quarter of a century, and have their holiday centres geographically scattered over the countryside in carefully chosen beauty spots. They provide for tens of thousands of ramblers annually, and their financial turnover last year exceeded £1,000,000. Yet none of their
836
guest houses is licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor.
In general, my Lords, people who find their pleasure in rambling are those who desire to get away from the congestion and crowds of towns and cities; and, in so far as they take their refreshments with them, they tend to consume these refreshments in small picnic parties and would not be attracted by licensed premises, which would cater for larger groups of people and would, therefore, make little appeal to the typical rambler. If it is argued that the licensed premises would sell liquor for consumption off the premises, so that ramblers could take their drinks away and consume them elsewhere, I would point out that this practice would lead inevitably to the encouragement of the litter of empty bottles lying about in these beauty spots. That point in respect of empty beer bottles being left about does not seem to have been dealt with, although it was raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham during the Committee stage, just at the time, when I was away—imbibing nothing stronger than tea. However, I see, on reference to Hansard, that in his reply Lord Chorley said:
"I am sure my noble friend Lord Rochester, if he were here, would regard a bottle as rubbish, whether it were full, empty or broken."
On the contrary, if the rubbish were no longer in the bottle, I should take no exception to it, so long as it was not left about as litter.
During the Committee stage Lord Chorley called me a "temperance fiend." That did not cause me even a momentary twinge, for in the cut and thrust of debate I know only too well how one is apt to find oneself for a moment at a loss for just the right word. I am sure that the noble Lord did not mean "fiend"; he might have meant fanatic. It is the demon of strong drink which turns men into fiends, and causes such havoc in our land, and which is so largely responsible for broken homes and so much cruelty, as well as for the carnage on our roads which we all so greatly deplore. How many of the fatal accidents which take place on our roads every day are, directly or indirectly, caused by drivers and others under the influence of drink, through taking just one glass more? That is not the work of drunkards but of moderate drinkers. Even the brewers do not like

837
drunkards. Theirs is the only trade that is not proud of its finished article! Our economic recovery is being retarded, and our plans for social security sabotaged by the colossal national expenditure of no less than £762,000,000 on intoxicants. It has been well said that:
"Drink is commercially our greatest wastrel; socially it is our greatest criminal; morally it is our greatest enemy."
Speaking at Preston as recently as November 6, Mr. Herbert Morrison deplored the excessive expenditure on alcoholic drinks. And on the Second Reading of the Licensing Bill in another place he said:
"a diminution in the consumption of alcohol is a perfectly legitimate purpose of social policy."
Then why not set about it, instead of providing under this Bill for additional facilities'?
This Amendment is in identical terms with that which I moved on the Committee stage, and I withdrew that Amendment only on an undertaking from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, that if I did so he would see whether any accommodation on this matter was possible. His words were:
"If the noble Lord would be willing to withdraw his Amendment for the time being, without prejudice, of course, to freedom of action at a later stage, I will go into conference with him and the Minister to see whether we can arrange any accommodation."
Not having been called to such a conference, may I take it that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has not yet been able to arrange one, but still hopes to do so before the Third Reading? Or, alternatively, has he succeeded in persuading the Minister to accept this Amendment, as he did when my noble friend Lord Llewellin moved a similar Amendment to the two previous Acts to which reference was made on the last occasion? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rochester.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, as I have been specially mentioned in part of the noble Lord's delightful speech—I am sure that some of his sayings will remain in our memories almost as aphorisms at all events, I will try to remember one or two of them, myself, for future use, if possible—may I say
838
that I am very sorry indeed that I have not arranged the conference to which he referred? I take full responsibility for my omission, and I tender my apologies to the noble Lord. We have had a long conference with the Minister on several matters and this subject, amongst others, cropped up. If the noble Lord feels that it is the right course, it is only fair to him for me to say that between now and the Third Reading I will arrange a conference between him, the Minister and myself. I did give the undertaking which the noble Lord has mentioned, and I am sorry that I have not carried it out in the strictest sense. On the question, which the noble Lord raises, I am sorry to have to tell him that my right honourable friend the Minister is not prepared to accept his Amendment. In the circumstances, and without prejudice to whet may transpire when we may meet, I do not feel able to press the Minister to do so. On two-other occasions, I have acted as, shall we say, amicus curive for the noble Lord. That was in connection with the Civil Restaurants Act and the Housing Act, in which restaurant provision was made. But in both those cases, the accommodation is situated in places where there is a considerable population. It is not established in scattered and remote spots such as those which are contemplated here. There is, therefore, a very material difference between this case and those cases. In any event, any licences will be subject to the licensing justices.
The only point between us is this—whether, if a licence is issued it should permit the supply of intoxicants only with a meal. On that I am bound to say that I am influenced by what the Minister said, and by my own experience as one who rambled a good deal many years ago. It was not a fancy picture which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, drew. One sometimes walks great distances, and for considerable periods. In my younger days I have walked for many hours in hot summer weather; and so, I am sure, have many others of your Lordships. Personally, I am convinced that the case put by the Minister is right. And it is in these circumstances that it is judged necessary to have licences, though in every instance, as I have said, the matter will be in the hands of the justices. I

839
support the view that a man should not be prohibited from having an alcoholic drink except with a meal, for, as we know, in many instances these walkers carry food with them. Therefore, in this matter which, as has been said, is quite different from the others, I cannot support the noble Lord as I did previously. I expect he will bear me a grudge; but there it is; and it cannot be helped. It is better that I should be absolutely frank. In the circumstances, we cannot accept this Amendment, but, as I am in honour bound to do, I will, between now and the Third Reading—I do not know when that will be—
LORD ROCHESTER: On Thursday.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will, if the noble Lord desires, do my best to arrange a meeting between the noble Lord, myself and the Minister, but I am obliged to tell the noble Lord in advance that I do not think he will meet with much success.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as I took some part in our discussion on this matter on a previous occasion, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two about it now. I think there is a difference between this Bill and the Civic Restaurants and Housing Acts, and my attitude on this Amendment has been considerably influenced by the Government Amendment with which we have just dealt. Where there are not adequate facilities it may well be that some rambler or other person going for a long walk will, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, take the main part of his meal with him. What he wants to do is to buy some kind of alcoholic or other refreshment en route. I do not believe that if we accept Lord Rochester's Amendment it will in any way prevent the litter of bottles, because an empty lemonade bottle is just as unpleasant litter as an empty beer-bottle. The sort of person who leaves a bottle about is just as likely, if he cannot get the one, to get the other and leave that about. So I do not think that point should influence us very much.
One sentence which Lord Rochester used made me think that perhaps these facilities were more important. He said that no alcoholic liquor whatever could be taken into these youth hostels. That
840
means that a person must start out on his day's journey without his bottle of beer in his pocket. He must buy it somewhere en route. I think the House were right in their attitude on this matter in the Civic Restaurants Act and Housing Act, but I recognise that there is a different case to be made here. I believe that there will be few additional licences given under this Bill. Most of these areas are already fairly suitably equipped, and there will be no great additional demand created by this Bill. On this occasion, unlike the previous one, I am not prepared to support the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in his Amendment.
4.2 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene, as I took part in the earlier discussion. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, when he refers to my description of him as a temperance "fiend" to write the letter "r" in front of "i"; then he will obtain my real sentiments in regard to him. The noble Lord said that there are already too many facilities for obtaining alcoholic refreshment in the countryside. If he is right about this, under the clause we have just accepted there will be no question of any further provision, because the authorities will examine the provisions and, if they are satisfied that they are sufficient, will not provide anything further. The noble Lord spoke of the number of organisations which exist to provide hostel accommodation. These associations carry on admirable work, but they provide evening meals and bed and breakfast, a different sort of refreshment from that envisaged here. They are not places into which one can turn for a drink. The noble Lord has threatened to ask your Lordships to divide. If he does so, I hope that noble Lords opposite who have in the past shown sympathy with the noble Lord's point of view will, on this occasion at any rate, become abstainers.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, believing as I do that it is as wrong to take offence as to give it, let me clear the ground at once by saying that I have no personal feeling about the seeming discourtesy of not having been called into this conference by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. This conference did take place, though I did not happen to be present. In any case, I should

841
desire to dissociate the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the Paymaster-General from even any apparent discourtesy in the matter, because I am sure they are incapable of it. The ultimate responsibility for resisting this Amendment must, of course, be with the Government as a whole, and especially with those Ministers whose names were on the Bill at its inception.
I concede at once that the position is somewhat ameliorated by the acceptance by the Government of the last Amendment, but I feel that the position is still unsatisfactory. How true it is that:
"Whom the gods seek to destroy they first make mad."
That on the very eve of a General Election some of their best friends should be estranged and alienated by the Government in this way may well mean that the Government have underestimated the strength of the temperance forces in the country. Is it any wonder that a conference of some ten or a dozen kindred societies, held in London this month at the headquarters of the National British Women's Total Abstinence Union, resolved upon the formation of a united committee to mobilise the women of the country on the temperance question in an effort to secure a million active votes? After what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, I feel sure that your Lordships do not wish to divide on this question, so I must be content with the Amendment being negatived. In all the circumstances, I am sure your Lordships will not expect me to withdraw it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 13 [Improvement of waterways for purposes of open-air recreation]:
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words after "Provided" and to insert:
"that a local planning authority shall not under this section provide facilities of any description except in cases where it appears to them that the facilities of that description are inadequate or unsatisfactory."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which your Lordships accepted to Clause 12. It has a similar effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 34, leave out from ("Provided") to end of line 39, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. The clause provides that the local planning authority may provide sailing, boating, bathing or fishing facilities, if they are satisfied that the facilities of that description are inadequate or unsatisfactory. Surely facilities of that sort may be inadequate or unsatisfactory and yet it may also be undesirable either to provide or extend them. I can refer to a district which the noble Lord knows well. There are no motor-boats on Wastwater, and no bathing facilities on Ennerdale Water. Under this clause, apparently the local planning authority would be able to provide such facilities. The existing facilities could certainly be described as inadequate or unsatisfactory, but I think it most undesirable to provide such facilities on these two lakes. I should be obliged if the noble Lord could clear up that point.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if your Lordships will permit me to speak again, this is not obligatory on the local authority. The Amendment merely gives them power to do so. It may be that some dispute may arise as to how the authority are to use these powers. In these circumstances they halve to consult the National Parks Commission. If there is disagreement then between the Commission and the local planning authority, it may be that the Minister may have to intervene and decide between them. That, as I understand it, is the position under the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after subsection (5) to insert:
"() Where any authority consulted under the last foregoing subsection objects to a pro posed exercise of powers under this section, and the objection is not withdrawn, the proposal shad not be proceeded with unless on an application in that behalf specifying the proposal and the objection the Minister so directs, and subject to any conditions or modifications specified in the direction: and before giving a direction under this subsection the Minister shall afford to each of the authorities an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose, and shall consider that person's report."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given to the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, during Committee stage, when the Government accepted his Amendment in principle. The effect of

843
the Amendment is that, in the event of there being any dispute between the local planning authority and the authority with whom they have consultations, which in cases of this kind would usually be the land drainage authority, the matter should be referred to the Minister for his decision. There is practically no difference in substance between the noble Lord's Amendment and this one, except that the noble Lord brought in the Minister of Agriculture. He has been left out of this Amendment, because, as I think your Lordships will appreciate, it is against constitutional usage to bring in the Minister in that way. The noble Lord can be sure that consultations will take place with the Ministry, and I hope he will be able to accept the Amendment, as now framed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Charley.)
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for going so far to meet this point, though I must admit that I am a little disappointed. When the noble Lord said that he accepted the Amendment in principle, I had hoped that he would accept one of my points, which was to mention the river boards and drainage boards specifically, and also to bring in the Minister of Agriculture. However, he has given the reason why the Minister of Agriculture cannot be brought in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Agreements with Nature Conservancy for establishment of nature reserves
16.—(1) The Nature Conservancy may enter into an agreement with any owner, lessee or occupier of any land, being land as to which it appears to the Conservancy expedient in the national interest that it should be managed as a nature reserve, for securing that it shall be so managed.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that an agreement shall not be entered into with a lessee or occupier of land unless the owner of the land is a consenting party thereto."
The noble Earl 'said: My Lords, I had thought of moving this Amendment formally and awaiting the noble Lord's reply. However, it might help if I say briefly what the Amendment means. If
844
your Lordships look at Clause 16 you will see that subsection (1) says:
"The Nature Conservancy may enter into an agreement with any owner, lessee or occupier of any land,"
for its management as a nature reserve. My Amendment says merely that such an agreement shall not be entered into with a lessee or occupier of land unless the owner has been consulted and has consented to the arrangement. There is an obvious fear on the part of owners that, having let land to a tenant, the tenant may then come to an agreement with the Nature Conservancy that will be found to commit the owner when he resumes occupation. Even if the tenant would not be in a position legally to commit the owner (I think that is almost certainly so) that particular piece of land may have become so established as a nature reserve that it would be virtually impossible for the owner to negotiate the cessation of the land being run as a nature reserve. It may be that he would not want to do so, but he should certainly have the right to be a consenting party to any agreement entered into. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 29, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, this is rather a curious and not uninteresting point on which I venture to address your Lordships for a few moments. Clause 16 (1) does not sufficiently indicate what a wide area is covered by this clause. If your Lordships look at subsection (3) you will see what a large scope the agreement may have. It extends to:
"the management of the land in such manner, the carrying out thereon of such work … as may he expedient for the purposes of the agreement."
The purposes of the agreement are that the property may be managed as a nature reserve. Subsection (3) (b) says:
"may provide for any of the matters mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph being carried out, or for the cost thereof being defrayed, either by the said owner or other persons, or by the Conservancy, or partly in one way and partly in another."
Without going into all the things that can be done, I feel it is desirable to remind your Lordships that it involves an enormous variety of projects. For instance, one of the first things that comes to my mind is the question of fen land.

845
The Fens carry some rather interesting fauna and some rare butterflies. The land has to he kept undrained; if that were not done, the whole fen land would be spoilt. Surely, it is not intended that the tenant should be able to say that he will do so and so with his land to make it a nature reserve? Then there are other cases of drainage, particularly cases where lakes all over the country are being dried up which, ought to be kept watered if it is desired that duck and fish should continue to live there. I am not going into the merits of any particular proposal, but merely showing the kind of proposal that may be made. Then there is the planting of flowers or shrubs for encouraging butterflies and certain birds. It is very pleasant to have them on a particular piece of land, but it may ruin that land for the future.
It is all very well to say that the landlord will not be bound, but if the tenant has been allowed to do anything of that sort the landlord may come back and find that his land has been grievously affected. I believe that would be still more so in the country about which we have heard so much in connection with ground-nuts. Then there is the question of beasts. I like to see a beaver, and I also like occasionally to see a badger. But whether they be beavers or badgers, I cannot conceive that work of the sort indicated should be done on a piece of land without consulting the owner, the person who may come back after the lessee or the occupier. If, with that explanation, your Lordships turn back to the terms of the agreement, you will be left in a state of doubt as to what the construction really is. Clause 16 (1) says:
"The Nature Conservancy may enter into an agreement with any owner,"—
note the word "any"—
"lessee or occupier of any land, being land which it appears to the Conservancy expedient in the national interest"
to have managed as a nature reserve. That does not prohibit an agreement with the lessee without consulting the landlord whose land may be grievously affected. I feel strongly that this clause does not at present indicate with any precision what is meant by it. I would suggest that the noble Lord should consider the addition at the end of subsection (1) of the words:
846
"so far as the person or persons entering into the agreement can properly so provide."
Let me show your Lordships how that will read. It will read thus:
"The Nature Conservancy may enter into an agreement with any owner, lessee or occupier of any land, being land"—
and so on—
"so far as the person or persons entering into the agreement can properly so provide."
That is to say, if he wants badgers, or to plant a special kind of tree, or to do drainage, or anything of the sort, then in such a case the person who must consent is undoubtedly the owner of the property.
I hope that nobody will think that I am against this clause. I am strongly in favour of the clause, provided it achieves its object without doing anything which is absolutely unjust to persons interested in the land. I trust the noble Lord has followed my argument, because, if he has, I am sure he will appreciate the force of it. It goes on different lines from the argument of my noble friend who moved the Amendment, but it is not too late even now to amend the Bill in that respect. Some amendment is urgently necessary with regard to this important clause.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I would like to support, my noble friend in this Amendment, although I do not think it goes far enough. In the large majority of cases I think it will be found that it is the owner who will agree, and that the man who will object will be the tenant. In a large number of cases the owner would be urged strongly to have a nature reserve in which flowers, badgers and other things were kept; it is the tenant who will make objections to having badgers and other things foisted upon him. I would rather that this Amendment went further and provided that agreement shall not be entered into unless all three join together.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My suggested Amendment does provide for that.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, is that the owner could not possibly enter into an agreement with the Nature Conservancy which was in derogation from the agreement with his tenant. For the course of his tenancy, the tenant is entitled to use the land in the

847
way the tenancy agreement lays down, and it would be impossible for the landlord to enter into any arrangement with the Conservancy which would derogate from that right of the tenant. The answer to the noble and learned Viscount is that the words he suggested are unnecessary. I am advised that there can be no question about it: that this clause does not confer upon a tenant or lessee any rights to enter into an arrangement with the Nature Conservancy which would in any way break any terms or conditions in his lease or which would in any way amount to what is in law a waste of the land. All that the noble and learned Viscount proposes to do would be to write into the clause in so many additional words that which is already implicit in it.
We discussed this problem during the discussions which were taking place and, as I understood the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, he wished to have a clear statement of the position as it exists under the clause. I am very glad indeed to be able to give him the assurances which I hope will satisfy him and other noble Lords who have taken a real and proper interest in this matter, which is obviously one of importance. In the first place, the tenant's agreement with the Nature Conservancy does not in any way bind the landlord. It obviously cannot do so unless the landlord himself comes in and becomes a party to the agreement. In the second place, the tenant cannot enter into any such agreement in breach of the covenants of his lease or if it would amount to what is legally waste—that is to say, would do permanent damage to the property. I might perhaps add that wherever possible, it is the intention of the Nature Conservancy to come to a joint agreement with both landlord and tenant, because obviously the Nature Conservancy are not going to set up a nature reserve in an area of this kind unless it is going to be a long-term business. Therefore, from their own point of view it will be of the greatest importance that they should have an agreement in which both the tenant and the landlord are joined. They have assured me—and I think the noble Earl was there when the assurance was given—that it is their intention to try and get a tripartite agreement to which both the landlord and tenant are parties.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord this—and it is a point of elucidation. Under the clause as drafted, could they reach an agreement with a tenant or occupier without reaching an agreement with the landlord, or could they reach an agreement with the landlord without reaching an agreement with the tenant or occupier? The noble Lord will understand what I mean. The position under this clause, as I see it, is obscure.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if I may speak again, I would say that as a matter of law they could. The clause does not confer any new rights whatever. The noble Marquess, myself, the Nature Conservancy, or anybody else can enter into an agreement with a man who has a lease on a particular piece of land, under which they become sub-lessees or acquire certain rights to go on that land and use it in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Provided that is not forbidden in the terms of the lease or does not amount to waste, then the landlord has no control over it. The Nature Conservancy are very anxious indeed that the landlord should come in, because they must have longterm agreements, otherwise they cannot run these nature reserves efficiently. Your Lordships will appreciate that these nature reserves are not going to be established for just a year or two—they are long processes, and in order that they may be carried out effectively it will be necessary for the Nature Conservancy to enter into long-term agreements. For that purpose they will seek out the landlord and try to come to an arrangement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the position is rather difficult on Report stage, but my questions are for the purpose of elucidation and the noble Lords's answers elucidatory answers. I cannot see why it is not possible so to draft a clause that both parties have to be consulted. The reply which the noble Lord gave to my last question was that it would be possible for a Nature Conservancy board, or whatever it may be, to enter into an agreement with a lessee without entering into an agreement with the owner of the land. Why should it be possible? Why should it not be a requirement of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, that both of them should be parties? There is no reason why it should not be. Many people feel it is desirable that they

849
should be parties, and I can see no disadvantage in it. It requires merely a new clause, and that is the Amendment which we suggest.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I add one word? What my noble friend Lord Salisbury has said is absolutely unanswerable, but what I really rise to say is this. I wholly and totally disagree with what has been put into the mouth of my noble friend opposite, that the words I suggested at the end of the clause are unnecessary. I do not want to say anything violent to people who cannot answer for themselves, but I must say that whoever told him that is absolutely and entirely wrong. In my opinion, it is nonsense. The clause is a badly drafted clause. It is framed in a way in which nobody can tell what precise agreement can be made under its terms with one or other of the various parties concerned. Accordingly, we ought to do our best to make it clear and precise, and if the noble Lord opposite thinks that the proper way in which to deal with this matter is to say that he is advised—
LORD CHORLEY: May I just interrupt? After such a strong statement from one who is so learned in the law, clearly I must take the matter back and look at it again with a view to coming to a decision whether some words of the kind should be inserted. May I continue my speech in answer to the noble Marquess? The answer is one which he should appreciate because it has been the law in England for the last six hundred or seven hundred years—namely, that a man who takes a lease of land should be able to deal with it within the ambit of his lease; and in my submission this clause gives no further rights to a tenant than those which he has always had under the Common Law of England.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I am really ashamed to rise again, but this is a question of law; it is not a thing within the ambit of the tenant. It is the fact that what he does under his agreement, quite rightly, may affect the landlord after the tenant has gone.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene on so
850
technical a point, but I should like to make one suggestion. Would it make the clause more acceptable if in line 26 of page 13 the word "and" were substituted for the word "or," so that the agreement would have to be entered into with both the lessee and the occupier of any land?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if I may, with your Lordships' permission, speak once more, that is a suggestion which we should naturally take into account when looking at the proposal made by the noble and learned Viscount. I hope the noble Earl will see his way to withdraw his Amendment, and we can then discuss the matter.
EARL DELAWARR: I will certainly ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. There is only one thing more I should like to say. We have been discussing this clause mainly from the strictly legal point of view of what, in fact, the lessee can do during the term of his lease. The point I was concerned about is the question of the tenant and what he is permitted to do during his lease. In fact he creates a fait accompli with which the land owner is met at he end of a lease. I thank the noble Lord for what he has said.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to say one word on the question of procedure. As your Lordships know, it has never been the practice in this House to have a Manuscript Amendment on Third Reading; it is a practice which has been constantly objected to. I understand that the Third Reading is to be taken on Thursday this week. To-day being Tuesday, if the noble Lord is going to take this back and put down an Amendment before the Third Reading, he will have to be quick. If he puts down a Manuscript Amendment it will not be in accordance with our usual practice.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am glad the noble Marquess has raised that point, because there is very little time to spare. If an Amendment is put down it will have to be formulated to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Or postpone the Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20:
Byelaws for protection of nature reserves
20.—(1) The Nature Conservancy may, as respects land which is being managed as a nature reserve under an agreement entered into with them or land held by them which is being managed as a nature reserve, make byelaws for the protection of the reserve:
Provided that byelaws under this section shall not have effect as respects any land in a reserve unless a declaration under the last foregoing section is in force declaring that the land is being managed as a nature reserve and notice of the declaration has been published in pursuance of that section.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to the proviso in subsection (1)
"(ii) that bye-laws under paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2) of this section shall not have effect unless and until there has been consultation between the Nature Conservancy and the county agricultural committee or committees in whose area the nature reserve is situated."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carrington, who has been obliged to leave. The main point of the Amendment is probably covered by the new clause which the Government intend to move after Clause 83. The object of the Amendment is to make certain that no bylaws are made for the preservation of birds and animals which, although they might seem to the members of the Conservancy to be well worth preserving, in fact might tend to cause excessive infestation of vermin. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 14, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, a good deal of apprehension was obvious in a number of speeches which were made on Committee stage and, indeed, in speeches which have been made this afternoon about the nature of the work which the Nature Conservancy are to undertake; and possibly it may be useful if I say a word or two on the general subject of the Nature Conservancy before I deal specifically with the Amendment just moved.
The Nature Conservancy was formed under a Royal Charter, which was drafted on very similar lines to that for the Agricultural Research Council, with which many of your Lordships are familiar; and it was granted on March 23 of this
852
year. The Conservancy is a United Kingdom body and is responsible to a Committee of the Privy Council. The Charter provides—and this is relevant Ito another Amendment which is to be submitted later on in connection with the position in Scotland—that there shall be a Scottish Committee in order to further conservancy objects in Scotland. The Privy Council Committee, which is presided over by the Lord President of the Council, includes, among other members, the Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The membership of the Conservancy, although largely composed of experts on conservancy matters, also includes three Members of Parliament drawn from the major political Parties. There are, similarly, three members of Parliament on the Scottish Committee, one of whom is a member of your Lordships' House, the Earl of Wemyss and March. The Conservancy's main functions are; the provision of scientific advice and the conservation and control of natural flora and fauna; the establishing, maintenance and management of nature reserves in Great Britain; and the organisation and development of research and scientific services relevant thereto. So that it has three main objects.
The Amendment is concerned with possible damage to agriculture which might arise, in the noble Lord's view, from the existence of nature reserves, as, for example, by the escape of pests to neighbouring land. From what I have told your Lordships about the work of the Nature Conservancy, however, I hope it will be clear that it will be the Nature Conservancy's own express business to see that plant and animal population in nature reserves are, in fact, scientifically controlled, and to maintain for that purpose close liaison with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and with the Scottish Office. The control of particular species may range from destruction to encouragement—anywhere between those limits, depending, of course, on the known status of the species in the maintenance of the balance of plants and animals suitable both to the purpose of the reserve and to the use to which the land is being put.
If it is a pest, the emphasis will always be on destruction. The scientific control and management of a nature reserve,

853
which is the main function of conservancy, must be clearly separated from the idea of a sanctuary. The Nature Conservancy are anxious that it should be perfectly clear that they are not a preservation society in the ordinary sense and that their nature reserves will not be sanctuaries; there could be nothing more different. A sanctuary, in the sense in which I am using the term, is a place where, whether consciously or unconsciously, there is the opposite of control, the exact negation of control: where the indigenous flora and fauna, the birds or whatever they may be, are left to multiply unchecked, thus establishing (as has in fact occurred in some parts of the country) an area from which pests may escape to neighbouring agricultural land, doing there considerable damage. But this is the exact opposite of the work which the Nature Conservancy is to undertake and is, in fact, undertaking. Their objective is to keep a balance in areas where the nature reserves exist.
The noble Lord may be assured that the Nature Conservancy will in fact consult with all the appropriate bodies whenever their bylaws are likely to affect the interests of those bodies. They already have the closest liaison with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in this country and with the Scottish Office, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries will refer all matters, where it is appropriate, to the local county agricultural committee so that the necessary discussions may take place at the appropriate level. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that, in these circumstances, having heard what I have told him about the practice and the objectives of the Nature Conservancy, he will feel it is unnecessary to have an Amendment of this kind. I hope he will withdraw it.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the full reasons he has given as to why this Amendment is unnecessary. I thank him very much for the assurances he has given and beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26:
Application of Parr III to Scotland
26. In the application of this Part of this Act to Scotland the expressions "owner." and "limited owner" have the same meanings as in section three of the Forestry Act, 1947.
4.42 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to omit all words after "Scotland" and to insert:
"the following provisions shall have effect—

(a) the expressions 'owner' and 'limited owner' have the same meanings as in section three of the Forestry Act, 1947;

(b) section twenty-four shall read as if in subsection (1) thereof there were added after the words 'Lord President of the Council' the words 'and the Secretary of State for Scotland'."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that a breath of Scottish air will not be disagreeable to your Lordships. On the Committee stage I put down an Amendment similar to this to clarify the position of the Secretary of State. The answer which I received on that occasion did not completely reassure me or, for that matter, several of my noble friends, including Lord Elibank and Lord Saltoun. Therefore, I have nut down this Amendment again at this stage in the hope that I shall receive a statement which will be satisfactory. The Amendment seeks to ensure that a copy of the report made by the Nature Conservancy goes to the Secretary of State for Scotland as well as to the Lord President. In passing, I should say that the answer I received on the last occasion was that that was not strictly necessary or constitutional because the Lord President of the Council is not an English Minister but is a United Kingdom Minister; he acts North of the Border in those matters which are within his purview. That I accept and understand. It was also said that the Secretary of State would automatically receive a report as he is a member of the appropriate Privy Council Committee. That I also accept. But I am not so much concerned with the question of the receiving of reports: what I am concerned with is to ensure that the Secretary of State is not by-passed when it comes to executive action in the provision and the maintenance of these nature reserves in Scotland.
This is important because, as your Lordships will recognise, in Clause 21 of the Bill power can be given by the Nature Conservancy to the local authorities, the county councils or even the district councils to establish and maintain nature reserves. So we are dealing not only with the important body of the Nature Conservancy, but also with county councils and district councils. The Secretary of State

855
is the father of all local authorities in Scotland. That is unquestioned. They may chafe at his guidance but they all acknowledge his parenthood. It would be quite wrong if we envisaged a state of affairs in which the Secretary of State and his Departments were by-passed when it came to the creation and maintenance of these nature reserves. So I put down this Amendment to elicit from the noble Lord a statement which I hope will be reassuring. If the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, had been here—and I hope he will soon be back with us—he would on racial grounds have understood my anxieties, but I hope that, none the less, in his absence the noble Lord who will reply will be able to reassure me on this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, leave out from beginning of line 11 to end of line 12, and insert the said words. —(Lord Clydesmuir.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I was born sufficiently near to that Roman Wall which divides our two countries to appreciate his anxiety on this point. I will not repeat what I said on the previous stage, because he has referred to it and I do not think it is necessary for me to go over it again. In the interval I have made inquiries and I will tell your Lordships what the position is at the earlier stages. I hope that the noble Lord will think that what occurs at the earlier stages really affords a good safeguard to the interests for which he is concerned. In connection with the last Amendment, I pointed out that the Conservancy's own Charter provides that, with the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland, they shall appoint a Scottish Committee for the purpose of carrying out the Conservancy's work in Scotland. So there we have a completely separate Committee upon which, as I pointed out, there are three members of Parliament, one of whom is a member of your Lordships' House, and other members with the necessary scientific qualifications or interest in matters which are within the ambit of the Conservancy's work.
The Scottish Committee meet in Scotland. There are regular joint meetings between the main Conservancy and the Scottish Committee, so that the liaison is
856
maintained. There is a Scottish director of nature conservation who has his headquarters in Edinburgh. The Scottish Committee are generally responsible for carrying out the work of the Nature Conservancy in Scotland. In particular, they will be responsible for selecting areas which are to be made nature reserves. I understand that they are already at work on that question. The next point is important to the noble Lord: there is a close liaison between the Scottish Committee and the Secretary of State's Departments who are represented at all meetings of the Committee. I think your Lordships will agree there could hardly be a closer liaison than that. In particular, arrangements have been made for the Committee to consult the Secretary of State's Department both from the planning and from the agricultural standpoints on all proposals for the establishment of Scottish nature reserves. So that both the planning aspects and the agricultural aspects have been carefully considered and are covered.
Any compulsory purchases of land in Scotland for the purpose of establishing nature reserves have to be authorised by the Secretary of State for Scotland under Clauses 102 (1) and 113 (1) of this Bill; and bylaws made for the protection of Scottish nature reserves must also be confirmed by the Secretary of State under Clause 105. So your Lordships will agree that great care has been taken to see that the Scottish side of the matter is properly looked after and that the whole job of managing these nature reserves in Scotland is, as it should be, being entrusted to a Scottish body which is closely in touch with the Secretary of State's Department. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the assurances I have been able to give him are satisfactory.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I say that even if the noble Lord had been born on the other side of the Wall I do not think he could have given me a more reassuring statement. I think it is quite satisfactory. It brings out the point that I chiefly sought to elicit; that no land can be acquired without the Secretary of State's consent (as appears in the Bill) and that the bylaws will be subject to his confirmation, too; also that there is very nearly Home Rule for Scottish fauna—that is to say, the Scottish Committee,

857
presided over by the Director for Scotland, an eminent scientist whom the Committee have been very fortunate to secure, will be able to make their own recommendations in the light of the conditions prevailing in the country. I think that the Amendment has served its purpose by drawing out the statement which I wished to hear. I thank the noble Lord for it and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Provision of information by other local authorities]:
4.50 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to add to the clause:
"() Information supplied to the surveying authority by any body able to satisfy that authority that it can provide information useful for the purposes of the survey shall be considered by that authority in the preparation of the draft map."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the preparation of the survey of footpaths and the maps connected with that survey is going to be a lengthy, difficult and long-drawn out process involving much research in every corner of the country. I think it would be reasonable to insert in this Bill a provision that where voluntary societies or other bodies have information which may be of assistance to the local authorities, that information shall be considered by those local authorities. I admit at once that under the Bill it may be, but I think it would be reasonable to say that it shall be. My Lords, there may be some authorities which will be impatient of receiving such information which could be given by such organisations as the Ramblers' Association, the Society which has the duty of protecting public footpaths, or indeed, on the other side, of landowners' organisations, and I beg to move this Amendment which seems to me to be unobjectionable.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 21, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the purpose of the Amendment is certainly unobjectionable but, as usual, it is not considered necessary in the Bill, since authorities can already take into account any material that is supplied to them from outside sources. There is one further
858
consideration — namely, that every authority will be aware that if it refuses to accept and consider any bona fide information supplied by a voluntary organisation, it will merely be inviting objections and representations when a draft map has been prepared. My right honourable friend has considered the anxiety which he knows troubles Lord Merthyr on this question, and he has asked me to state here that he is prepared to give an undertaking that he will issue a circular or some administrative instruction to local authorities concerned, pointing out the value of information that voluntary organisations can supply, and advising the authorities to make use of this wherever possible. In view of that undertaking by the Minister, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said and for the assurance he has given. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29:
Representations and objections as to draft maps and statements
(4) Any person aggrieved
(a) by a determination of the surveying authority under subsection (2) of this section not to give effect to a representation or objection as to anything omitted from the draft map and statement (other than a limitation or condition to which a right of way is alleged to be subject), or
may, at any time within twenty-eight days after the service upon him of notice of the determination or decision, serve notice of appeal against that determination or decision on the Minister and on the surveying authority.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 26, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I accept "four" in place of "three."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"() At any time after the publication of a notice under the la it foregoing subsection

859
and before the expiration of the period specified in the notice for the making of representations and objections, the owner of any land to which the draft map and statement relate, or any other person interested in such land, may require the surveying authority to inform him what documents (if any) creating or modifying any of the rights of way shown on the draft map, being rights of way required to be shown thereon, were taken into account in preparing the draft map, so far as the said land is concerned, and—

(a) as respects any such documents in the possession of the surveying authority, to permit him to inspect them and take copies thereof,

(b) as respects any such documents not in their possession, to give him any information the authority have as to where the documents can be inspected;

and on any requirement being made under this subsection the surveying authority shall comply therewith within fourteen days of the making of the requirement:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the documentary or other evidence which may be adduced in any proceedings under this Part of this Act in support of the existence of a right of way."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment carries out the undertaking I gave to Lord Amherst in regard to Clause 27. I have a long brief here, but I do not think it is necessary to read it all because I am satisfied that the undertaking given is carried out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 30, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.55 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (4) (a) after "anything" to insert "contained in or." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is really consequent upon what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald himself said when this clause was going through Committee. He moved a number of Amendments which he said would go a considerable way to meet the point which I was endeavouring to put forward, and he suggested that it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to accept his Amendments and, if we thought fit, put down a further Amendment on Report stage. The noble Lord was right in saying that the Amendments went some way to meet us, but they did not go the whole way, and we consider that the Amendment that we now put forward is still required.
A person can appeal to the Minister on anything that is contained in or omitted from these maps and that sort of thing, but has no right of appeal in a case where a statutory authority have decided upon a point. If the statutory authority decide to have a map in a certain form, there is then no right of appeal to the Minister. As an example of what we are getting at, there may be on the map, or in the particulars, a road described as a road "used as a public path." Transport interests may wish to challenge this description and to contend that the road is just as much a road for vehicles; and we suggest that if the surveying authority will not nullify the particulars in this respect, there should be an appeal to the Minister. It is said that an appeal to the Minister is unnecessary, because if a map is erroneous it does not matter. What we are anxious about is that, once a road becomes scheduled or appears on a map, if it is accepted, then the whole case may be prejudiced at a later stage under Clause 92, where the Minister may have to take action. Therefore we suggest that these additional words should be inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 25, after ("anything") insert ("contained in or").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I agree that the substantial Amendments which I moved to this clause do not give the noble Earl all he asked for. He has agreed, however, that they go some way to meet his request. He has made his trouble quite clear. What he is anxious about is that a road used as a public path may be included on the map, and that it may therefore in due course become subject to traffic restrictions under Clause 92. I would prefer to leave Clause 92 until we reach it; nevertheless, it is to some extent involved here. What I would say is this: if it should happen that an order were made by the local authority restricting traffic on such a highway as the noble Earl has in mind, then the provisions of Part II of the First Schedule would apply. That allows full scope for making objections to orders under Clause 92, and requires that where the highway authority object to the order a public inquiry shall be held. I should also like to add that the Minister of

861
Transport has undertaken to inform those organisations which he feels may be responsible for promoting this Amendment when such an order is submitted to him, so that there will be no case where they will not be in a position to object if they want to. In view of that if hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for the answer that he has given, and for the assurance which the Minister has conveyed. In the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Preparation of provisional maps and statements]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 37, after ("under") insert ("paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Power of Minister to expedite preparation of maps and statements]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 18, after ("under") insert ("subsection (2) of").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 27, after ("objections") insert ("made under the said subsection (2)").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39:
Creation of rights of nay by agreement
(2) An agreement made under the last foregoing subsection (hereinafter referred to as a "public path agreement") shall be on such terms as to payment or otherwise as may be specified in the agreement, and may, if it is so agreed, provide for the dedication of the foot-
862
path or bridleway subject to limitations or conditions affecting the public right of way thereover.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that before entering into a public path agreement the council with whom it is proposed to enter into such agreement shall serve a notice of such proposal upon any person having an interest in any fishery for the purpose of fishing for freshwater fish, salmon, trout or any kind of fish which migrate to and from tidal waters, and eels, in every case where the footpath or bridleway will be adjacent to or so near that the use thereof will be likely to cause injury to such fishery and shall give to such person an opportunity of making representations in regard thereto."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, a number of your Lordships have been fortunate enough to secure concessions between the last stage of the Bill and to-day, and I had hoped from something that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said on Committee stage, that I should be fortunate to have a similar privilege in regard to this Amendment. I understand that some unexpected difficulties have arisen, and that the noble Lord cannot produce words to insert into the Bill. I understand, however, that he is prepared to give some assurances. Therefore, I move my Amendment formally in order to see what the assurances are. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Pace 35, line 26, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sorry that we cannot accept the noble Viscount's Amendment. We have great sympathy with the object which the noble Viscount has in view. The difficulty is that it would not be possible to concede this point without conceding rights to all sorts of other people to receive similar notices. If that were done, it would become, as I am sure the noble Viscount will realise, quite impracticable to impose on the authority the burden of giving notice to all sorts of interests which might be sufficiently closely concerned to be entitled to have the notice. It may help the noble Lord to some extent if I tell him that my right honourable friend the Minister is willing to mention this point to local authorities concerned in any memorandum on the administration of Part IV which he may issue, so that, so

863
far as possible, they may be in a position to safeguard interests of the sort which the noble Viscount has in mind. I hope this will satisfy the noble Viscount, and that he will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying what he has said, although I confess that I am a little disappointed at his reply. I cannot believe that any owner will feel that he has any real protection in going forward with agreements of the sort I had in mind unless he has the protection of a formal inquiry. The only effect of the Government's decision, I suggest, will be to make it less likely than before, or rather not likely at all, that any owner will be willing to enter into an agreement if there is a danger of some other owner with contingent interests proceeding against him at law. I have often wished that local authorities had some power to institute inquiries without having to go to so much preliminary trouble or taking compulsory steps. But perhaps that is a point that might be looked into on another occasion. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42:
Diversion of public paths
42.—(1) Where an owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by a public path satisfies the council of the county borough or county district in which the land is situated that, by reason of the effect of the public right of way on the existing use of the land or of other land held therewith, it is expedient that the line of the path across his land, or part of that line, should be diverted (whether on to other land of his or on to land of another owner, lessee or occupier), the council may by order (hereinafter referred to as a "diversion order") made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Minister—

(a) create, as from such date as may be specified in the order, any such new public right of way as appears to the council requisite for effecting the diversion, and

(b) extinguish, as from such date as may be so specified in accordance with the provisions of the next following subsection, the public right of way over so much of the path as appears to the council requisite as aforesaid.

LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment has been tabled to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, on the Committee stage. The
864
clause as at present drafted enables the owner who wishes to have a footpath diverted to make representations only when it is expedient in the interests of the existing use of the land. The noble Lord suggested that it would be advisable to extend that in such a way as to enable the owner to make representations in a case where it would be useful to have a shorter or more commodious way than the old one. We concur in that view, and we have put down this Amendment in order to secure that it is put into effect. I am sure your Lordships will agree with it and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 29, leave out from ("that") to ("it") in line 31 and insert ("for securing the efficient use of the land or of other land held therewith or of providing a shorter or more commodious path").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, subject to one drafting point, I am completely satisfied. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for what has been done to meet me in this matter. The drafting point is this. In the third line of the Amendment, where it refers to "of providing," I do not see what governs the word "of." The wording does not seem to me to be grammatical, though I may be wrong. I suggest putting in the words, "with the object of providing" or "for the purpose of providing," or even "for providing." If the noble Lord would look at that word "of" I think he will see that it is rather in the air. However, this is purely a drafting point. Subject to that I am most grateful, and I do not think there is any need to hold up the Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I should have thought that the drafting was all right, but we will look at it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44:
Exercise of powers of making diversion and extinguishment orders
(5) Where it appears to the Minister as respects a particular public path that the path or part thereof should be diverted or stopped up, then if—

(a) the appropriate authority have not made and submitted to him a diversion order or an extinguishment order, as the case may be, and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that, if such an order were made and submitted to him, he

865
would have power to confirm the order in accordance with the provisions in that behalf of the two last foregoing sections,

the Minister, after consultation with the said authority, may direct the authority to make and submit to him a diversion order or an extinguishment order, as the case may be, or may himself make the order; and where the Minister gives a direction under this subsection the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, of that subsection and of the proviso to subsection (2) of this section, or the proviso to the last foregoing subsection, as the case may be, shall not apply.
5.6 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, during the discussion of this clause it was pointed out that the clause was perhaps rather wider than was needed, though I think that when one looks at it closely it is not so wide as some of your Lordships thought. It is just as well that its exact scope should be made clear; and it is quite narrow. We have put down this Amendment, which I hope will satisfy your Lordships. Its meaning is clear from its terms, and I need not say more about it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 24, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 25 and insert ("an owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by a public path satisfies the Minister that a diversion thereof is expedient as mentioned in subsection (1) of the last but one foregoing section, or where it appears to the Minister as respects a public path that it is expedient as mentioned in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section that the path or part thereof should be").(Lord Chorley.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I was chiefly concerned in raising a point on this matter in our previous discussion as I thought the clause as originally drawn was far too wide. Looking at it again, after the remarks which the noble Lord has made, I still think that it is too wide, because it refers to the Minister doing something in regard to a particular path. However, we need not argue that for one moment this afternoon, because the Amendment which the noble Lord has put down in view of the criticisms on the drafting made in this House, makes it clear how far the Minister can go. That limitation I accept, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for putting down the Amendment. It certainly removes the ground for my criticism of the original very wide drafting.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I agree that the first pant of this Amendment is entirely satisfactory, but I have been a little worried about the second part. If I am right in saying that under the second part, which begins with the words "or where it appears to the Minister," the Minister can close a public path only
"on the grounds that the path is not needed for public use"
—I am quoting the words in Clause 43 (1)—then I regard it as satisfactory. It all depends on the views of the Minister. Sonic Ministers may see things from a different angle from others. May I have an assurance that this Amendment applies only to cases where the path is not needed for public use?
LORD CHORLEY: That is the view we take. It is almost impossible to do anything in this world which makes every person happy, but I am sure that this Amendment will make most of your Lordships happy.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47:
Liability for repair of public paths
47.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, the rule of law whereby a highway is repairable by the inhabitants at large shall apply to all public paths, whether coming into existence before or after the commencement of this Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment passed or made before the commencement of this Act; and accordingly the enactments relating to highways so repairable shall have effect in relation to all such public paths.
5.9 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (1) after "Act," where that word last occurs, to insert:
"and notwithstanding any liability to repair of any other person."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a question of the liability to repair footpaths which as your Lordships will remember is left on the owners of the land in those cases where it already exists as a result of some Statute, agreement or whatever it may be. We had some discussions about this matter, as those of your Lordships who took part in the joint consultations will remember, and I think that as the result it became plain that the general view was that the obligation on the land owners there ought to be left. But, in order that it may be

867
made clear beyond peradventure that the duty of keeping footpaths in repair will fall primarily on the local authority we have put down these additional words. I think they make the position clear, and it will no longer be an excuse for any local authority who fail to effect the necessary repairs to say that it is already the duty of a landowner to do them. I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 29, after ("Act") insert ("and notwithstanding any liability to repair of any other person").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, this Amendment and the next go together. I understand that the noble Lord is going to accept them, but I hope he will not say this is any sort of large concession on his part. I feel that I am picking up an exceedingly small crumb that has fallen from his table. In fact, I doubt whether he is giving me anything at all, but, provided it is treated as a mere token, I will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 3, after ("enclosure") insert ("or").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I gave the noble Lord a large piece of cake a moment ago. After all, it is his Amendment. It may be only a crumb, but it is what he is asking your Lordships to give him. I am glad to be able to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 3, leave out ("or otherwise"). —(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is one of the Amendments we withdrew during Committee stage in order that the whole question should be discussed. Discussions have taken place, and it has been agreed that the land owner should still be under the obligation for repairs. The Amendment enables a land owner who has a joint responsibility with other land owners in respect of repairs, and who
868
has had the whole of the cost put upon him by the local authority after they have carried out the work, to obtain contributions from the other land owners who are jointly responsible with him. I think your Lordships will agree that that is only equitable, and will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 10, at end insert—
("and
(c) where the highway authority exercise a right of recovery under the last foregoing paragraph, then, if the said person would have been entitled to recover from some other person the whole or part of the expenses of repairing the path if he had repaired it himself, he shall be entitled to recover from that other person the whole or the like part, as the case may be, of the expenses recovered from him by the highway authority.")—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51:
General provisions as to long-distance routes
(3) A report under this section may also include such recommendations as the Commission may think fit for the restriction of traffic on existing highways along which the route passes.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to subsection (3):
"after consultation with such organisations as appear to the Commission to be representative of the road users to whom the proposed restrictions would apply."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when Clause 51 was going through Committee stage I moved an Amendment which said:
"Provided that before making any recommendation for restricting the use of highways by vehicles the Commission shall consult such associations representing users of vehicles as they may think fit."
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that that Amendment was too vaguely drafted, and we have attempted to meet that criticism in this Amendment. I am asking for nothing extraordinary. The principle of this Amendment has been conceded in the Milk (Special Designations) Act, 1949; in three different Schedules in the Agriculture Act, 1947; in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and in the National Health Service Act, 1946. I can give your Lordships the details but I do not want to weary the House nor take up time unnecessarily.

869
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us this concession, if it be a concession, for direct consultation, which I think facilitates general understanding. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 10, at end insert the said words. —(Earl Howe.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, it is true that I pointed out to the noble Earl that his Amendment was vague, but I also assured him, and I thought he was going to be satisfied with the assurance, that the Minister would ask the Commission, when established, to consider the desirability of consulting with the main associations representing road users before making any recommendations in their Report for long-distance footpaths. Although the noble Earl's present Amendment is different from his earlier one, I do not think he would gain anything from it, because it only imposes an obligation to consult and I have already given him the assurance that the Minister will ask the National Parks Commission to do that. If the associations gain earlier knowledge as a result of these consultations they will have all the knowledge they require to protect the interests of their members. That is as much as they can satisfactorily have at this stage. When the local planning authorities come to carry out their proposals for long-distance routes, they have to submit these proposals to the Minister of Transport. I think I have already given an assurance on his behalf, but I repeat it now. He has promised to give these associations early notification of the submission of orders to him, so that they will be able, if they wish to do so, to lodge their objections. The noble Earl is aware that the provisions of the Second Schedule, Part II, will ensure that these representations will be considered and a public inquiry will be held. So that in fact the associations will have all the protection they need. In these circumstances, I am sure the noble Earl will agree that there is no need for him to press this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for the assurance he has given, which on the surface appears to me to be satisfactory, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52:
Approval of proposals relating to a long-distance route
52.—(1) On the submission to the Minister of a report under the last foregoing section, the Minister shall consider any proposals contained in the report wider subsection (2) of that section and may either approve the proposals, with or without modifications, or reject the proposals:
Provided that where the Minister does not propose to approve the proposals as set out in the report he shall, before coming to a determination as to what action to take under this subsection, consult with the Commission and such other authorities and persons as he may think fit.
5.18 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words from and including "shall consider" to the beginning of the proviso and to insert:

"(a) shall publish in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as appears requisite to him for informing persons and bodies of persons concerned, notice of the submission of the report naming places where copies of the map prepared in accordance with subsection (2) of the last foregoing section may be inspected, and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-eight days) within which and the manner in which representations or objections with respect to the route shown an the map may be made; and

(b) shall consider any proposals contained in the report under the said subsection (2) and any representations or objections made in accordance with the last foregoing paragraph;

and the Minister may either approve the proposals, with or without modifications, or reject the proposals:"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when a similar Amendment was submitted during the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, expressed a certain amount of sympathy far its object and asked for something more satisfactory. We have redrafted the Amendment and I hope that to some extent it meets his wishes. If this Amendment is not made, proposed long-distance routes will not be notified until after they have been approved by the Minister and have taken effect. We feel that this Amendment is required to safeguard the position. The Bill in its present form does not require an order approving, and confirming long-distance routes to be glade under Part I of the First Schedule; the Minister's determination under Clause 52 is to be sufficient for their purpose. Transport

871
interests would be content with the Minister's approval provided that the proposals of the Commission were published as provided for in the Amendment which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 30, leave out from ("Minister") to end of line 33 and insert the said new words.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this proposal is open to exactly the same objection as that which I made to the last Amendment. The noble Earl has not met the arguments I put before him when we discussed this matter in Committee. It is unwise that the proposals should become too rigid at this early stage. On the contrary, it is important that they should be kept as loose and flexible as possible, so that the details can be worked out. If the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted it would prejudice the interests of land owners, because in effect they would be met with what appeared to be a cut-and-dried proposal which would affect their land and which afterwards, as a result of further discussions, might be so modified that their land would not be affected in the same way at all. Therefore, their interests would be seriously prejudiced.
What the noble Earl is really concerned to do is to see that the organisations representing the road users get notice at an early stage that there are, in fact, proposals which may have the eventual effect of restricting traffic. It is not necessary that they should have detailed information at this stage. The fact that the Minister approves proposals for a long-distance route which include proposals for traffic restrictions will not prejudice them. I should like to make this quite clear. The Minister of Transport will come in at that stage, and he will consider the individual orders which are made by the local authorities and which, as I have already pointed out, have to be put up to him. As in the case of the last Amendment, I can assure the noble Earl that the Minister will suggest to the Commission that they should get into touch with the main motorist organisations in regard to all proposals which are made which may restrict traffic. It is unlikely that there will be more than a minute number of them, because the whole object of these
872
long-distance footpaths is to avoid routes on which motorists go. It will be only here and there that there is a stretch on which restriction of traffic may arise.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, with the permission of the House I would like to ask the noble Lord whether the motoring and transport organisations will be consulted before any decision is taken. What we fear is that the decision may be taken and the consultations will take place subsequently.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, that certainly is so. No final decision can be taken until it gets to the Minister of Transport. Even before that stage the motoring organisations will be consulted.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Accommodation meals and refreshments along long-distance routes]:
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is an Amendment which has been put down after consultation. We have already had some discussion about it. I do not think I need say anything further. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 13, at end insert:
("Provided that an authority shall not under this section provide accommodation, meals or refreshments except in so far as it appears to them that the facilities therefor are inadequate or unsatisfactory, either generally or as respects any description of accommodation, meals or refreshments, as the case may be."—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56:
Rights of way subject to conditions for securing efficient use of agricultural land
(4) Where the owner, lessee or occupier of agricultural land, or land which is being brought into use for agriculture, represents to the highway authority that it is expedient, for securing the efficient use of the land for agriculture, that stiles, gates or other works for preventing the ingress or egress of animals should be erected on a public path crossing the land, the highway authority may, subject to such conditions as they may impose for maintenance and for enabling the right of way to he exercised without undue inconvenience to the public, authorise the erection of the stiles, gates or other works; and where the highway

873
authority give an authorisation under this subsection the public right of way shall be deemed to be subject to a condition that the stiles, gates or works may be erected and maintained in accordance with the authorisation and so long as the conditions attached thereto are complied with.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down to meet a point which arose in a speech by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. He was afraid that the power conferred upon the authority to authorise the erection of gates and stiles arose only in cases where land was being brought into agriculture. I do not think that is so, if one looks at the clause, but it would be possible to argue that it did not exist in a case where the type of agriculture was being altered—for example, where a farmer had decided to build up an attested herd, and was altering the use of the land in that way. We wish it to be clear that that is a case which is covered, and we have put in these words to make it clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 28, leave out from ("that") to ("that") in line 29 and insert ("for securing that the use, or any particular use, of the land for agriculture shall be efficiently carried on, it is expedient").—(Lard Chorley.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this Amendment was put down in response to one which I submitted. It certainly meets my point, and I would like to thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down to give effect to a promise made to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The Amendment provides that where a person has made an application to the highway authority for the erection of a stile or gate or other work for securing the efficient use of the land for agriculture under Clause 56, and the highway authority refuse the application, or grant it subject to conditions, there shall be the right of appeal to the Minister. We agree that there should be this right of appeal and have accordingly tabled this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 35, leave out from ("works") to ("the") in line 36 and insert—
("() If, on a representation duly made under the last foregoing subsection, the highway
874
authority refuse to grant an authorisation there-under, or grant such an authorisation subject to conditions, the person who made the representation may appeal to the Minister against the refusal or against the imposition of the conditions, as the case may be; and if the Minister, after giving to the appellant and to the highway authority an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose and considering the report of that person, determines to allow the appeal, he shall—

(a) if the appeal was against a refusal, authorise the erection of the stiles, gates or other works in question, subject to such conditions as he may impose for maintenance and for enabling the right of way to be exercised without undue inconvenience to the public;

(b) if the appeal was against the imposition of conditions, direct that the authorisation granted by the highway authority shall, as may be specified n the direction, have effect either unconditionally or subject to such modified conditions as may be so specified.

() Where in the care of a public path an authorisation is granted by the highway authority under subsection (4) of this section or by the Minister under the last foregoing subsection.").—(Lord Chorley.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this Amendment does not go quite as far as we had hoped, but it certainly goes some way towards meeting our point. I would like to thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Compensation to be assessed with regard to effect of first five years of access]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is put down to try and meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, in moving an Amendment on the Committee stage. It tightens up the wording of the subsection, so that the powers of subsection (2) are limited to cases where the local authorities or the Ministers (where the subsection applies to Clause 77) consider that the proper exercise of their functions under this clause will be substantially prejudiced unless the excepted land of the classes specified is acquired along with the access land. I feel that this Amendment will allay the fears entertained by the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 10, leave out ("three next following sections") and insert ("next following section").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment, which I feel is a great improvement on the original wording.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Acquisition by local authorities of land for public access]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 46, leave out ("expedient, for") and insert ("that").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is a further consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 47, leave out (", that any") and insert ("will be substantially prejudiced unless").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 1, leave out ("should be") and insert ("is").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, after Clause 83 to insert the following new clause:
"Protection for Agriculture and Forestry:
Duty of authorities as respects agriculture and forestry
In the exercise of their function under this Act it shall be the duty of the Commission, the Nature Conservancy and local authorities to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is inserted in place of the Amendment in which we deleted subsection (4) of Clause 5. It fulfils a wish of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and others, that forestry and agriculture should be brought in as much as possible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 83, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, we accept this Amendment as a great improvement in the Bill. I would like to thank the noble Lord for meeting the House in the view that was universally expressed that the interests of agriculture and forestry had not been sufficiently safeguarded. In thanking the Government for accepting that view, perhaps we should also take a little credit to this House for asserting the importance of such a vital subject. I gladly accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 [Information services to be provided by Commission]:
5.30 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to subsection (1):
"and the said methods shall include the preparation and publication of a code of conduct for the guidance of persons visiting the countryside."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is put down in an attempt to meet the views which were put forward by many noble Lords on the Committee stage, that there should be a countryside code. During the course of that discussion I pointed out that one of the main duties of the National Parks Commission would be the duty of educating the people who are to use the national parks, and I indicated that they would in fact draw up a code of this kind. In reply to that, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, pointed out that their duties under Clause 85 are limited to the national parks—which is true. It appeared in the course of the discussion that your Lordships were willing that the National Parks Commission should undertake this duty. It also appeared that the various suggestions which had been made about laying the countryside code before Parliament, and giving it some kind of presumptive effect in actions of law and matters of that sort, were not insisted upon. Therefore, we thought that if we specifically imposed upon the National Parks Commission the duty of preparing a code of conduct of this kind, not only in regard to the national park areas but over the whole of the countryside, it might well provide a compromise which your Lordships would be prepared to accept. Therefore, we have tabled this Amendment,

877
and I hope your Lordships will be ready to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 30, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Chorley.)
EARL, DE LA WARR: My Lords, I believe this is in response to an Amendment which I had down somewhere else in the Bill, and I think it meets the point I made. There is only one question which I would like to ask the noble Lord. The point has been raised with me by outside authorities, and refers to the words, "visiting the countryside." That rather implies a charge upon those coming from the towns, whereas we have to admit that sometimes the damage is caused by people resident in the countryside. It is purely a matter of drafting. The noble Lord may say that there is nothing in it, but, if there is, perhaps he would make some modification on Third Reading. There is one point of assurance I would like from the noble Lord, and that is that such bodies as the Central Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union and organisations representing the ramblers should be consulted in drawing up this code. I am quite sure the noble Lord can give me that assurance.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say one word? He is right when he says that I pointed out that Clause 85, as originally drawn, applied only to national parks. We wanted this code to cover access land and, indeed, people using footpaths across fields. For myself I think it is a good Amendment, and I rather like the words, "visiting the countryside," which in my view cover the points which were raised by your Lordships. If people have not lived in the countryside they may not realise the Importance of shutting gates, whereas the countryman should realise the importance of it. I am glad that this new duty is being placed on the Commission, and I am certain that they will consult the interests concerned. Having done so, they will, I am certain, produce a worth-while code, which I hope in due time will find its place in the curriculum of our schools.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am glad that noble Lords have been able to accept this proposal. We will certainly have the drafting point looked at, and
878
so far as the organisations representing the land owners and others are concerned, I can give the assurance that when the National Parks Commission is set up the need for consulting hem will be pointed out.
EARL DE LA WARR: Also farmers and ramblers?
LORD CHORLEY: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the last. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 31, leave out ("generality") and insert ("provisions").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.36 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 85 to insert the following new clause:
Registration orders and agreements in local Land Charges Register
".—(1) Forthwith after the making of

(a) an order designating an area as a National Park and an order varying the same under Part II of this Act,

(b) an agreement that land should be managed as a Nature Reserve under Part III of this Act,

(c) the making of a public path agreement under Part IV of this Act,

(d) the making of a public path order under Part IV of this Act,

(e) art access agreement under Part V of this Act.

(f) an access order under Part V of this Act,

and forthwith after the approval of proposals relating to a long-distance route under Part IV of this Act, such orders, agreements and proposals shall be registered in the manner provided under subsection (3) of this section in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of the council of each county borough or county district in which the land to which the order agreement or proposals relate to any part thereof is situated, or, if that land or any part thereof is situated in the administrative county of London, by the proper officer of the London County Council.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Minister or other authority forthwith after any order has been made to notify that fact to the proper officer of any council by whom the order is required to be registered as aforesaid and to furnish to him all information relating to the order requisite in that behalf.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (6) of section fifteen of the Land Charges Act, 1925, to make rules for giving effect to the

879
provisions of that section shall be exercisable for giving effect to the provisions of this section."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which was discussed at considerable length on Committee stage, and it would not be right for me to repeat the arguments which were raised on that occasion. The Amendment was withdrawn in order that the Government might have an opportunity of reconsidering the position they then adopted. No doubt it will be readily recognised that the points mentioned in the first part of the Amendment, from (a) to (f), have a considerable effect upon the value of land. Whilst there may be other arguments for the acceptance of this Amendment, I would put forward to the noble Lord only those which seem to me to be the most important. It would facilitate the operations between vendor and purchaser if these points were made subject to registration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 85, insert the said new clause, —(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, we did discuss this matter at considerable length on the Committee stage, and I agreed to have it looked at again. We have, in fact, looked at it again very carefully, and the upshot is that the arguments which I put before your Lordships on the Committee stage are regarded as being, conclusively against the proposal. I have here a rather long brief, and if your Lordships would like me to go into the arguments again, I would be glad to do so. In effect, it would be repeating what I said on the earlier occasion, but of course if one embarks upon a closely-knit technical argument of this kind, it is necessary to carry it right through. I am entirely in your Lordships' hands.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I should be glad if the noble Lord would continue.
LORD CHORLEY: It appears that there are two questions which arise on this Amendment. First of all, the noble Earl asked me on the last stage which of the documents listed in subsection (1) of his clause would be registrable in the local land charges register without any change in the law. Here I am afraid that he must be satisfied with an answer of a rather negative character. He would
880
not expect me to be able to answer the question myself, and therefore I have taken legal advice. The noble Earl may not be surprised to learn that the lawyers are disagreed on these points. It appears that the answer turns on the wording of a paragraph in a Schedule to the Act of 1926, the meaning of which is not at all clear, and upon which judgment could be passed only by the High Court. The most I can tell the noble Earl is that no document made by the Minister or the Nature Conservancy would be registrable in the local land charges register, and that there is some doubt whether any of the other documents he lists would be registrable in that register.
On the other hand, it is clear that an agreement for managing land as a nature reserve, whether made by the Nature Conservancy or by a local authority, would be registrable in the land charges register, which I understand gives a purchaser of land the same protection as registration in the local land charges register. I think we shall all be in agreement in regretting that the state of the law should be so confused. I do not think I am giving, away any secrets when I tell your Lordships that a Committee, on which experts, both from inside and outside Government circles, are deliberating, are at the moment considering what changes ought to be made in the law relating to local land charges. Whatever they may recommend—and I am afraid I am not in a position either to tell your Lordships what their recommendations are likely to be, or to forecast a date on which their recommendations will appear —I think we all ought to be agreed that so general a question could not be dealt with satisfactorily in this Bill.
Now I should like to turn to the second point raised by the noble Earl's clause and to discuss that matter with him on its merits. I think we all have the same object in view—namely, to secure that a purchaser of land should be able to inform himself, before he has gone too far, whether there are any orders or agreements of the kind which we are discussing which might discourage him from purchasing the land he wants. The noble Earl suggests that the way to achieve this result is by registration of all the relevant documents in the local land charges register. The effect of his clause—and I have no doubt this was intended—is that

881
failure to register would not invalidate the order or agreement; so that the purchaser would not have the full measure of protection which normal registration of local land charge gives him. But this seems inevitable, for, after all, officers of local authorities are as human and as subject to error as the rest of us; and it could hardly be contended that it would be right that a national park order should be invalidated by reason of a slip on the part of the registration machinery. The noble Earl relies, therefore, as we do, on a duty which will be honestly and carefully carried out, and the only difference between us is one of machinery. As the Bill stands, there are provisions for securing that all these orders—and, what is more important, the maps relating to them —will be available for inspection at convenient places. If it would help noble Lords to have details of the provisions of the Bill I have them here, but I do not think I need give them in detail. It is proposed to secure by administrative arrangement that the places where the various orders and maps are to be kept shall coincide, so that they will be convenient for the purchaser and the purchaser's solicitor.
That is our scheme. The noble Earl may ask why it is better than, or even as good as, his scheme of registration in the local land charges register. The answer is this. We are dealing here with country land, where there are not easily identified boundaries such as one finds when dealing with houses in a town. It follows that the entry in the local land charges register, and still more in the official certificate of a search in that register, cannot be made sufficiently precise to give an intending purchaser the information he requires. When a purchaser finds that there is a public street works charge affecting named houses in a named street, he is easily able to see whether the charge affects his property or not. Similarly, when in the days before the 1947 Act the purchaser found in the register a notice of a resolution to prepare a town planning scheme affecting certain local authority areas, the entry was sufficiently informative because he knew in what local authority area his property lay. Here we are dealing with areas, or, in the case of public paths, with lines cutting across all existing boundaries. If we accepted the noble Earl's suggestion the most the
882
intending purchaser would find would be, for example, an entry telling him that there was a public path in the parishes of A, B, C and D. What he wants to know, of course, is whether the public path crosses his field or his neighbour's; and this he can do only by looking at a large-scale map of a kind for which there would not be any room on an official search certificate. These are the reasons which have led us, in no spirit of antagonism to the noble Earl's Amendment, but simply on the merits of the case, to prefer our scheme, the scheme of having these documents available all together at a point where they can be inspected, to the clause which he has put forward and which I am afraid we ought not to accept. I hope noble Lords will agree that ours is the wiser course, and that in these circumstances the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. But it seems that henceforth, unless something is done about it, this land charges register will be almost valueless. A number of very important things that an intending purchaser ought to be able to find in it he will not in fact find at all. This surely makes the register far less valuable than it would be if the Amendment were accepted. I believe that the practical difficulties which the noble Lord mentions could be overcome, though it is true that there is a difficulty about the large-scale maps. The information in the local land charges register ought to be useful to the intending purchaser and his solicitors, but these solicitors are not always local men who can conveniently call at a particular local authority's office. I would ask the Government, if they will not accept the Amendment here, at least to put before this Committee of experts these points that I have raised. They are points which ought to be dealt with. The noble Lord ought not to take the view that the arrangement he has mentioned is good enough for all time. I think he ought to inquire and see whether this information cannot in some way be incorporated so that the purchaser has only to consult one register to find the information he seeks. If the noble Lord can say that he will bring these matters to the notice

883
of this body I think that that would go far to meet the points being made from this side of the House.
LORD CHORLEY: I will certainly give that assurance.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, in view of the assurance which the noble Lord has just given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 [Designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty]:
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 8, leave out from ("more") to ("notice") in line 9, and insert ("local newspapers circulating in the area of every such authority as aforesaid").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [Application to areas of outstanding natural beauty of provisions relating to National Parks]:
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 1, leave out ("paragraph (d)") and insert ("paragraphs (d) and (e)").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 [Local authority byelaws]:
5.50 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1) to omit "may" and insert "shall." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think I can put this point briefly to your Lordships. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 89 of the Bill you will see that
"A local planning authority may … make byelaws."
We should like to see that made mandatory and change "may" to "shall." The point really lying behind the Amendment is this. Earlier in the Bill today the Government put down an Amendment in substitution for an Amendment inserted by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, last time, giving the National Parks Commission power to suggest model bylaws—I am only paraphrasing—to the local planning authorities. Although that Amendment is a good one, and goes a
884
long way to meet us, unfortunately that portion of the Bill, and indeed the National Parks Commission themselves, can concern themselves only with national parks. These model bylaws will have no application to access areas. We have, therefore, to come back to this portion of the Bill, Clause 89, which is concerned with the planning authority, in order that anything to do with bylaws shall be dealt with on a more effective basis than has hitherto been suggested. If the noble Lord feels that it is possible by any other means to meet the point that I have made, I am not in the least tied to this particular form of Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should think that the clause might be left as it stands. If a local planning authority find that events make it desirable that bylaws should be made, then the word "may" will give them all the power they need. They will certainly go ahead and make the bylaws. But if the word is "shall," then they will feel they have to do something, whether the need exists or not. If people are told to do something, they will scratch around for something to do. The word "may" gives the local planning authorities all the power they want. It is preferable to the word "shall." I hope the clause will be left as it is.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like you to accept the argument which my noble friend has just put before you. Although we have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Earl's intention in moving this Amendment, we think it goes too far and is too sweeping. I should like to remind your Lordships that the bylaws apply not only to access land but to land which an authority own. It may well be that they will own a hostel and surrounding land for the purposes of giving people accommodation for the night and that sort of thing, where it would be quite absurd that bylaws should apply. That is just one example where they would have to make bylaws if this Amendment were accepted. I feel that the Home Secretary's powers, to which the noble Earl has referred, which lie in the background and which were put into

885
the Bill in another place as a result of representations made by the land-owning interests and other interests of that kind, are sufficient. They enable the Home Secretary to make bylaws in cases where the local authority do not do so and where he thinks that they ought to have done so. I am prepared to give the noble Earl an assurance that my right honourable friend will, in fact, draw to the attention of the local planning authorities the need for looking closely at this question of bylaws in connection with the particular areas for which they are responsible. That will be brought closely to their attention and the desirability of enacting bylaws will be brought home to them. In the light of these considerations, I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, think the noble Lord has gone a long way to meet the point I have raised. Just to be quite clear, I gather that he is prepared to give an undertaking that the Minister will by official circular draw the attention of the local planning authorities to the bylaws that are to be drawn up by the National Parks Commission under Clause 6. If that is the undertaking, as I take it that it is, I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 [Wardens]:
5.57 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"() For the enforcement of the provisions of any bye-laws or duties under this Act every warden shall be deemed to be a constable and to have all the same powers and privileges, and be subject to the same liabilities as a constable duly appointed has or is subject to, by virtue of the common law or any statute."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a point which we discussed at great length on Committee stage. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to give me an assurance that will satisfy me. If I may, I will defer my speech till later. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 36, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall not be able fully to satisfy the noble Earl on this matter. As he said, we had considerable discussion
886
about this in Committee and, as a result of that, consultations took place. At those consultations we thought that perhaps we should be able to come to some compromise which would satisfy everybody; but I am afraid that that will not be possible. However, I hope that what I am going to say to the noble Earl may satisfy him. I would start by saying that the Government's view is that this problem is one which primarily must be dealt with by educating people, and, as we have already seen, that is an obligation which is placed fairly and squarely upon the National Parks Commission. There may, however, be cases in one or two areas which are particularly close to large towns, where the wardens are unable to keep order. There is no great reason to suppose that the passing of this Bill will lead to an enormous influx of people into the countryside; but it may be that there will be some sort of influx, and that the wardens will have a good deal on their hands.
The noble Earl suggests that that position could be dealt with by making the wardens special constables. There are various objections to that. In the first place, if they are made special constables they must have the full powers and privileges, which include pensions, and they have to be given the special training which is given to all special constables. In most of the areas this would be unnecessary; it would be a waste of time, and a waste of money. But if, in the one or two' areas where it is possible that difficulties may arise, the wardens find that they cannot cope with those difficulties, then they will be able to call in the police. If there is recurrent trouble in any particular area and there are not enough police in the neighbourhood to deal with it, then the chief constable for the area in question will no doubt be prepared to send in the necessary reinforcements to that district. Of course the fact that the police are rather below strength at the present time gives rise to difficulties in connection with this matter, but that problem is not to be got over by having special constables, because it may well be that a man who would make an admirable recruit for the police may be recruited into the noble Earl's special constabulary and the police would lose a full-time man in return for the noble Earl getting a special warden of the kind which he has envisaged.

887
If it does, in fact, appear that there is a real need for a fully qualified policeman to deal with these problems, then the demand must be faced and I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will be prepared to increase the quota of police in that district. I think the noble Earl was informed that the Home Secretary might be willing under his own powers to appoint the wardens as special constables in some particular districts, if hooliganism occurred, but on investigation it does not appear that he can do that. The police in the country are not under the charge of the Home Secretary. Special constables in the provinces are appointed in quite a different way, by the justices on the proposal of the chief constables, and I could not therefore give any undertaking of the kind which the noble Earl has in view. If hooliganism of a really serious character is found to prevail in one or other of these areas, then it will have to be dealt with in the ordinary way by the ordinary police who, if necessary, will have to be augmented for the purpose. I hope the noble Earl will agree that that is the only really satisfactory way of handling the problem.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I should have thought that perhaps that was not so, and that in many cases the person selected to be a warden would be just the kind of person whom a chief constable would wish to make a special constable. I should have thought that where hooliganism was taking place generally, if the local planning authority or the authority in charge applied to the chief constable for the area he might well give consideration to making one or more of these wardens special constables, with the increased power that would be given to them. That is a course which does not seem to have been envisaged by the noble Lord. It would be open not to the Home Secretary but to the chief constable to appoint; but, of course, the Home Secretary, in the communications he has with chief constables, might well indicate that in appropriate cases it might be thought wise to make some move of that sort. Some such compromise arrangement might be exactly the kind of arrangement that would fit the case put forward from this side of the House.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, there is one simple point which has to be borne
888
in mind here. A special constable is a special constable only when he is posted to do a duty. It is necessary, therefore, every time a special constable goes out, that he shall be posted by a regular police officer or by an officer of the special constabulary delegated for this purpose to do a specific duty. The situation is an easy one for any chief constable to deal with. If there is hooliganism, then if he desires he can make a warden a special constable, and that warden can be instructed to report on duty at a certain time. Normally, that will operate smoothly. If there is no trouble, then there is no need to make a man a special constable. But there is one thing on which I entirely agree with the Government. If these men are to be made special constables they must receive a proper training, so that they know what their power is, and how to use it. I think it is an easy thing, without making it compulsory, to make these men special constables. It is just a case of the chief constable having the power should he wish to use it.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Government will resist this Amendment. I do not anticipate that these national parks are going to become the scene of brawls and hooliganism. I think that life will proceed quietly, pleasantly and harmoniously there, and that the public are far more likely to respond to the wardens if their duties are, in fact, confined to subsection (2), paragraph (b)—namely, to advise and assist the public on any matter for which bylaws can be made under that clause. The people who visit these national parks will be far more likely to submit to advice and guidance from these wardens than if they think they are constables; and they are more likely to try to dodge these bylaws if they feel that there are constables in the national parks to enforce them. We have lately heard a good deal about snoopers. I do not wish to see the system of snoopers extended to our national parks, and for that reason I am glad to hear that the Government will resist this Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord thinks that those possessing the power of a constable are snoopers. We have always regarded snoopers as being a very different type of person. This is a serious matter. Of

889
course, we do not anticipate general hooliganism. But while the noble Lord may not anticipate any form of trouble, that means that he is completely out of touch with what has been happening for some time to men trying to drag out a living for themselves and a certain amount of food for this country, in, for instance, the Peak district. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that there have been repeated cases of hooliganism at which the ramblers, no less than the farmers, have expressed the greatest indignation. Under this Bill (with which, in the main, they are in agreement), these men trying to farm this land have practically no provision for compensation for any damage that is done. I think the least we can do is to ask for some form of protection where there is this hooliganism. A great deal depends upon the word "where" and possibly upon the word "when." I am prepared to admit that in the drafting of my Amendment I have perhaps asked for more than is necessary. It suggests that in every case the wardens should be armed with the powers of a special constable, but nobody would seriously feel that that was necessary. What I had hoped the noble Lord was going to say, however, was that, while he could not agree with my Amendment asking for this general appointment of wardens as special constables, he would agree with something on the lines of the suggestion already made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin—namely, that in certain circumstances, in appointing the wardens, the planning authorities should feel that they can approach the chief constable (originally it was thought to be the Home Secretary, but the noble Lord is right in saying that it is the chief constable) with a view to having special powers given to their wardens, if not permanently then at any rate temporarily, for dealing with any particular outbreaks.
Further, I had hoped that the noble Lord was going to say that the Minister, in the instructions which undoubtedly he will have sent round to the different planning authorities, would inform them that it was within their power to make this approach to the chief constable. I had hoped also to hear that the Home Secretary might be prepared to give some indication to chief constables that this was a matter which in certain circumstances they might feel it within their
890
province to undertake. If the noble Lord would give me that undertaking, I should feel not only that he had made a concession to the point of view which I have been trying to put forward but that, in fact, he was making a proposal that was bettor than the Amendment which stands in my name; and I would most gladly withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Earl an assurance that the Minister will issue a circular on the point; I have no authority to do that. But I think the suggestion which was made by Lord Llewellin may well afford a way out of the difficulty. I can assure the noble Earl that I will bring that suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend, and no doubt he will be able to take such action on lines of that sort as may appear to him proper.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment at this stage, but I retain full liberty to bring this matter forward again at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 92:
Restriction of traffic on certain roads
92.—(1) Where it appears to the council of a county or county borough, as respects a road in their area, being a road in a National Park or in an area of outstanding natural beauty or a road forming part of a longdistance route, that it is expedient that the use of the road by traffic of any particular description should be restricted on the grounds—

(a) in the case of a road in a National Park or area of outstanding natural beauty, that the use of the road by traffic of that description would detract from the natural beauty of the Park or area or from the enjoyment thereof by the community as a whole, and

(b) in the case of a road forming part of a long-distance route, that the use of the road by such traffic would prejudice the use thereof by persons journeying on foot or on horseback,

the following provisions of this section shall have effect.
6.11 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1) after the first "road," to insert "other than a trunk road or a Class I road." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the interests for which I speak attach more

891
importance to this Amendment than to any other which we have on the Marshalled List. I moved a similar Amendment during the Committee stage and the noble Lord opposite resisted it. However, we pressed him, and the result was that, towards the end of the discussion, he said that he would consider the possibility of meeting me with regard to trunk roads. His remarks are reported in Column 625 (Vol. 165) of Hansard. As I said during the Committee stage, the position is that 843 miles of trunk roads or Class I roads fall within the ambit of the national parks. In the case of trunk roads, provision as to 100 per cent. of their cost is made out of the Road Fund, and in the case of Class I roads provision as to 75 per cent. of their cost is made out of that fund. The Minister said, in effect: "Oh, well, it does not matter having the trunk and Class I roads in this Bill, because the powers provided will never be used." My answer to that is, "Why, then, have the power in the Bill?" Then it is said: "The Minister must have power to restrict." The Hobhouse Report is generally considered as being the basis of the whole of this Bill, and Paragraph 167 of that Report reads as follows:
"We recommend, however, that a further power should be included in national parks legislation, to be held in reserve for use in cases of special necessity, to prohibit the entry of charabancs and motor coaches into national parks…"
and this is the important proviso
"other than on main through-routes…"
So if you put powers in the Bill to restrict traffic on the through roads—Class I and trunk roads—you are going further than the Hobhouse Committee recommended.
If the Minister wants to restrict traffic he can restrict it under Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. He can restrict any form of motor traffic if it is likely to prove dangerous or undesirable. That means there is already power to restrict traffic. Why should it be desired to bring in further powers now, to use this Bill as a sort of vehicle for introducing extra legislation on the point? We who speak for the transport interests urge the Government most strongly to drop trunk roads and Class I roads out of the Bill. Consider what will happen if you restrict trunk road traffic. The traffic as a rule has to go by the shortest route from
892
point to point. If you say there will be an alternative, that means that the road will be longer, and that in turn involves further expense for road transport of every kind. It means greater expenditure on petrol and other things. Even now, at the eleventh hour, I beg the Minister seriously to consider the points I have raised. I hope he will remember what the Hobhouse Report said to the effect that restriction of traffic of this character should not be imposed in respect of main thoroughfares. I do not see any reason for going further than the Hobhouse Report. I know the Minister has an Amendment down following mine, but it does not altogether cover the point; indeed it does not cover my point at all. I suggest that there is ample power under the Road Traffic Act to restrict traffic, and that to provide power in this Bill to impose further restrictions on through traffic is on every ground undesirable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 9, after the first ("road") insert ("other than a trunk road or a Class 1 road").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is right in what he has said about the discussion of this matter on a previous occasion. I then saw a situation in which I felt that, at all costs, I must avoid a Division. The noble Earl, I am pleased to say, also saw that situation. For that reason, I said that if he would confine his Amendment to first-class roads, there might be a possibility of coming to an understanding. He did not accept that suggestion, but decided to withdraw his Amendment in order to avoid any difficulty on that occasion. This suggestion has been looked into very thoroughly, and what is felt about it is this. Possibly on some occasion in the unknown future a situation may arise in which it will be advisable for the Minister to have this power. I do not think that the noble Earl will deny that there is such a possibility. I think we have gone a long way towards meeting him. He has referred to the Amendment which stands in my name. I suggest that in that Amendment we make a substantial concession to the noble Earl. I do not know what advice he has received concerning the next Amendment, but I am advised that it goes almost the whole

893
way to meet him. It is realised that in these days restriction of traffic, unless it is unavoidable, is undesirable. The Amendment which follows, as I have said, goes as far as the Government consider they can go to meet the noble Earl. It is felt that circumstances may develop in which it will be necessary to redirect traffic, and we consider that the Minister can be trusted to see to it that traffic is sent by an alternative route which will not make matters so difficult as the noble Earl seems to fear. I hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment. Should he do so and should it be carried, then I can tell him that it is most unlikely that the Minister will accept it in another place. I am sure that the noble Earl will get far more by withdrawing his Amendment and accepting mine than he will by pressing his Amendment now.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord has been extremely reasonable over this Amendment, and I should like to suggest to him a possible compromise which he might be prepared to accept. From what he said during the Committee stage, we felt that he was going to cut out trunk roads altogether from the Bill. He has not gone so far as that, but he has tabled a new Amendment which provides that, subject to certain special conditions, the Minister will not make any order restricting traffic on trunk roads. I put it to the noble Lord that he could possibly add the words "or Class I road" to his Amendment on Clause 93.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I am prepared to accept the words "or Class I road" in my next Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, having regard to what the noble Lord has just said in reply to my noble friend Lord Gifford, I think we can accept that, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93 [Supplementary provisions as to orders under s. 92]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR had given Notice to move, after subsection (3) to insert:
"() Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing section, the Minister of Transport shall not confirm or make an order restricting the use by traffic of any description of a
894
trunk road unless he is satisfied that, having regard to any alternative routes available and to all other circumstances, the imposition of the restriction will not interfere with the reasonable requirements of traffic of the description in question."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the Committee will allow me to include here and now in my Amendment after "road," in line 5, the words "or a Class I road," I beg to move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 47, at end insert:
("() Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing section, the Minister of Transport shall not confirm or make an order restricting the use by traffic of any description of a trunk road or a Class I road unless he is satisfied that, having regard to any alternative routes available and to all other circumstances, the imposition of the restriction will not interfere with the reasonable requirements of traffic of the description in question.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 [Crown land]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.—
Page 82, line 3, after ("Part") insert ("IV or").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this is perhaps my only opportunity of doing something I should like to do, and that is to thank the two noble Lords who have been in charge of this Bill for the considerable extent to which they have met the views of noble Lords on this side of the House and, indeed, in all parts of the House. We appreciate that deeply. We had a little misunderstanding, but that often happens. We appreciate the way in which the noble Lords have handled this Bill and the way in which the Minister, in all our discussions, has gone such a long way to meet our views.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for hip kind words. This is the second measure which I have seen through in my short time in your Lordships' House, and I should like to say that your Lordships have been the means of improving the Bill. I thank noble Lords very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT JOWITT: My Lords, the Air Corporations Bill is another consolidation measure. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

PROFITS TAX BILL
6.24 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Profits Tax Bill. This Bill has a simple purpose: it is to raise the rate of profits tax on distributed profits from 25 to 30 per cent. I shall be very ready to try to reply to any points raised by the distinguished speakers who are to follow me, but in my opening remarks, which will be fairly but not unduly brief, I shall stick with some severity to the Bill itself. The Bill raises the rate of tax on distributed profits from 25 to 30 per cent. It leaves the rate on undistributed profits at 10 per cent. Therefore, it does not fall on any money set aside by companies towards reserves. The change will come into force as from the end of September last, and the increase in tax will yield £24,000,000 gross in a full year—that is, £13,000,000 net revenue after consequent loss of income tax. The provisions which give effect to this proposal are somewhat complicated but I think they are not a matter of controversy, and I will pass on to the principles and justification behind the Bill.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer first made this proposal in another place, he said that the consequence of devaluation would be two-fold: first, a higher return in sterling for hard currency exports, and secondly, a small increase in the internal price level of the country. The lower income groups would, on the whole, by reason of the higher internal prices, make a greater sacrifice propor-
896
tionately than the rest of the community. To give one example, the increase in the price of bread falls more heavily on the poor than on the rich, as we know well. By contrast, the profit-earning section of the community, again broadly speaking, would tend to benefit from both the consequences of devaluation. When I talk of the "profit-earning section," may I hasten to say that, as a somewhat passive member of that fraternity, I do not allude to them in any pejorative way. I am simply talking hard economics and not passing any kind of moral judgment—I certainly would not do any such thing. Broadly speaking, it is true that the profit-earning section would benefit from devaluation.
Moreover, the cuts which were recently discussed in your Lordships' House and judged inadequate by a certain vehement spokesman also tend to bear more heavily on the poor than on the rich. In order to anticipate dialectical argument, I would agree that the profit earner in this sense is in some cases not a rich man, but the broad argument I have presented holds good. Therefore, in the words of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this Bill is a measure of rough justice. I would submit that any broad fiscal measure of this kind cannot be selective, and, whether we like it or not, tends to be rough justice. In the opinion of the Government, the Bill makes a modest but essential contribution to the fight against inflation. That is why the Government consider this measure both necessary and just. In addition, the Bill has the advantage of widening the gap between the rates of tax on distributed and undistributed profits, thereby increasing the incentive of companies to put their profits to reserve.
I should now like to come to the objections. It may be late when I rise to reply and, therefore, I will attempt at this stage to deal with some of the broader issues which may be raised by subsequent speakers, although, of course, I hope to be able to add a few words at the end. I have mentioned one kind of incentive. And let me dwell on the word "incentive" for more than a moment or two. Whenever any extra taxation of this nature is imposed, the cry is raised in certain quarters, with complete sincerity, that in some sense taxation of this kind reduces the natural incentive on the part

897
of entrepreneurs (as we used to call them; I do not know whether the word is so much employed to-day) to earn maximum profits and produce everything within their power. In our present economic situation, incentives are surely required not only for the comparatively small number of dividend receivers but also for the very much larger number of those whose sole or main income is derived from wages or small salaries—a point not always made, and one which perhaps I sometimes fail to make myself in our discussions here. But from the point of view of general incentive to increased work throughout the community, I submit strongly that any policy which appeared to be palpably unjust and to favour the profit receivers against the rest would diminish the total incentive throughout the nation. This danger was foreseen in another place by the honourable Baronet, Sir Ralph Glyn, a highly respected member of the Opposition, who agreed to the necessity in present circumstances of showing the working people of the country that investors, too, are making their sacrifice—I believe I am representing correctly what Sir Ralph Glyn said.
In bringing forward this measure the Government face clearly and resolutely the fact that, to maintain fairness to all, sacrifices are necessary all round. At the risk of headlining a single sentence in my own speech, may I say that that is the keynote of what I want to lay before the House this afternoon? The Bill attempts to distribute those sacrifices in a manner that I believe is broadly recognised as just. The measure does not stand alone, of course, but rounds off or complements the cuts which we have already discussed. It helps, therefore, to defeat inflation, as I suggested just now, and to promote confidence in the value of our money; and that itself, of course, is an all-important incentive. The Bill is also indispensable in creating the atmosphere to elicit great national efforts. We are all agreed that great national efforts are vital if we are to pull through, and that those efforts must be made for rewards which, in the short run, must be lower on the average than previously if our standard of life is to be recovered and improved on in the end. So much for what we sometimes overlook—namely, the incentive to the nation as a whole.
898
But even if we confine ourselves to the profit-receiving class (again, I do not use the term in any tone of condemnation, or anything of the kind) I cannot for a moment agree that incentive will be reduced. The increase in total tax—that is, income tax and profits tax together—as the honourable Member for Blackley, Mr. Diamond, an expert accountant, said in another place, will work out, when allowance is made for the consequential reduced burden of income tax, at only an extra 2¾ per cent. —that is, 7d. in the £ on distributed profits. That is the extra burden we are placing on the profit earner. In another place, I understand, a member of the Opposition went so far as to describe this Bill as footling, in the sense that it produced only £13,000,000 additional revenue. I do not agree with that use of words, but I do agree that the increase in tax is so small that it represents an insignificant addition to the burden already carried by the profit earner, an increase which can by no stretch of imagination be described as one which will materially reduce incentive.
But let us come closer to this question of incentive and the influence on incentive of profits tax, without arguing the precise impact of the Bill. Let us look at the actual situation in industry since the time when the profits tax in its present form was imposed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first point to observe is surely that total production, however measured, has risen substantially. I will not to-night embark on an argument with the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, as to whether it has risen by 35, 30 or 25 per cent.; but I hope the noble Lord will not arrest me in my flight if I assert that production has increased substantially since that time. That, surely, is self-evident, apart from statistical information, if we observe that the nation's industrial capacity has been fully deployed over the last two years. Surely that disposes of the argument that the profits tax in a general way has acted to restrict industrial production.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Is the argument that it has encouraged it?
LORD PAKENHAM: I am sure the noble and learned Viscount would not

899
wish to "guy" my argument. Therefore, I cannot quite see the meaning of his intervention. Of course, I was not saying that it had encouraged production. What I did say was that it did not discourage production, if we believe the evidence before our eyes. I am sure the noble Viscount does not wish to parody my remarks, because he is the most fair of reasoners.
I come now to the second point which I think is worth observing, and which is familiar to all—namely, that our export trade has achieved levels half as high again as those ruling before the war, a time when profits tax was only 5 per cent. and, indeed, when the rate of income tax was not much more than half what it is now. The profits tax does not seem to have retarded the general level of the export trade. Thirdly, if we look at the question of incentive in relation to industrial expansion it is worth observing that not only is industry at the present time drawing on all available supplies of labour and materials, but at this moment there are more business men—I understand considerably more—who are seeking to obtain licences from the Board of Trade for building factories than there are resources which would enable the Board of Trade to issue the building licences required. So, if we judge by the experience of the Board of Trade, who are having to stop business men from building factories because the resources are simply not there, it is surely untrue to argue, as has often been argued most sincerely in this House, that there is a shortage of risk-bearing capital. If that is so, how is it that all these business men are so anxious to launch out? That is a point which those who wish to follow me and who are going to talk about the shortage of risk-bearing capital must find some way to answer. As I have said, expansion is going ahead as fast as is physically possible in this country, and it is a striking contrast to those times between the wars when the country left lying idle and wasting, indeed rotting, not only industrial capacity, but the skill and energy of some of the most valuable men in our country. That is surely a point against the fact that incentives are less than they were during the period between the wars, as is suggested by some noble Lords.
900
Let us come a little closer still to the argument that is sometimes presented. We are told, and rightly so, both by noble Lords opposite and by others, that everything must be done to give an incentive to those who are anxious and able to contribute to our exports to dollar markets. I agree that we must encourage them in every way. Devaluation gives them a sharp stimulus and a marked incentive. The increase in tax will in no way decrease the greater profitability that devaluation brings to exports to the dollar area, in contrast to our exports in other areas, since this profits tax will fall equally upon all profits, wherever earned. The large differential, if I may use that word, in favour of dollar exports brought about by devaluation will still remain, and there is nothing in this measure which will detract from the advantages provided by that differential. I am not now arguing that this brings a new advantage; I say that it does not in any way detract from the advantage given by devaluation.
Of course, it could be argued (I would not regard it as a fantastic argument; I do not know whether we shall hear it today) that the increase in the tax, if permitted at all, should not apply to profits resulting from the sales to hard-currency areas. I am bound to say that there are some people who would argue that those are the only profits which might reasonably be expected to bear the tax, because the exporters to those areas are the people who will get the chief benefit. But the more common criticism from opponents appears to be that this tax, if we are to accept it, should apply only to the non-dollar exports. I do not regard that as an absurd contention, but I am rather doubtful whether noble Lords will press it this afternoon. I would suggest myself that, quite apart from the obvious administrative difficulties—they are considerable—involved in the segregation of such profits from exports to those particular areas, it would be entirely inequitable and against the whole moral sense of most of us if additional profits arising from devaluation should go completely unscathed: if the substantial profits which the dollar exporters would get as a result of devaluation should go forward without bearing this burden. I think it would be very hard to stand here and argue that the dollar exporters—the people who are getting the substantial benefit of devaluation

901
—should be the only people to bear this or any other kind of impost. Therefore, as between those who think that the dollar exporters should be the only people to bear the tax, and those who think they are the only people who should not bear the tax, we take a middle position and say they should undergo the same treatment as other exporters and producers.
I come to a second line of criticism, the first being the kind of criticism which is stimulated by the word "incentive." The second broad heading may be summed up in the word "reserves." It has been strongly argued in another place that the increase in the rate of tax would effectively fall on moneys placed to reserve, and would in consequence diminish funds available for re-equipment and modernisation of industry. Is that seriously maintained? Moneys placed to reserve should be, and generally are, a first charge on disposable profits. It is the dividend which comes last. The noble Lord may interrupt me, but I have always wished for the opportunity of investing money in any company led by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. But if the dividend is to come first, I am a little more nervous. Luckily, I have nothing to spare. However, it is my understanding that the dividend comes last, and a good company director will never increase his dividend if it means that the moneys placed to reserve are inadequate. It is therefore surely fallacious to suggest that a higher rate of tax on distributed profits will adversely affect moneys placed to reserve. On the contrary, its result would normally mean that if the moneys placed to reserve would otherwise be inadequate, it would be necessary, to the extent of the increase in tax, to reduce the dividend from what might otherwise have been paid. The conclusion is, therefore, that the profits tax is effectively a tax on dividends. It certainly should be if the entrepreneurs and the people who run our great businesses play their part as we wish. The profits tax is, and should be, a tax on dividends and not on moneys placed to reserve.
However, even if there were something in this objection—and I cannot accept that there is, if we are all to play our part—the actual effect of this particular tax would be insignificant in relation to the sums currently placed to reserves, which are, even in real terms, larger than they were pre-war. The sums currently
902
placed to reserves after paying the tax and after making allowance for the rise in prices are larger than pre-war. I would just remind the House that so far as the question of replacement of plant and machinery is concerned, the very substantial concession made to industry this year of increasing the initial depreciation allowance from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. ought not to be forgotten. I feel that that particular concession, which I think has been widely welcomed here as elsewhere, is sufficient to answer those who maintain that the Government is unaware of the need for industry to provide out of its own resources for replacement of plant and machinery.
Finally, to take what I would call the third broad heading of objections, the point is made (not specifically in relation to the increase to tax, but in relation to tax on profits generally) that the taxation of profits is a factor in the production cost and, therefore, makes it harder for us to export. I will not attempt to bore your Lordships this afternoon with an academic argument designed to show that in normal circumstances profits tax is not a factor in production costs. I would recall to your Lordships' attention only what was quoted with considerable effect elsewhere—namely, the unanimous findings of the Colwyn Committee of 1927. Your Lordships will remember that the Colwyn Committee concluded that the broad argument that income tax—then the only tax on profits—is not a factor in production costs
"is true over practically the whole field and for practically the whole of the time."
The Colwyn Committee concluded, therefore, that income tax is not a factor in the cost of production. I do not wish to add to that testimony, but I am quite ready to supplement it if your Lordships wish to dispute the findings of that most eminent body.
In conclusion, having studied with the House some of the objections which have been advanced against this measure and having touched upon the main arguments in its favour, on behalf of the Government I am asking the House to accept this measure as a contribution to be made by the profit-earning section of the community to the sacrifices called for from the nation as a whole. I cannot help mentioning what I think is accepted

903
here and elsewhere, that the T.U.C., on behalf of the millions they represent, are shouldering with fine courage their share of the sacrifices, and I cannot believe that noble Lords opposite would wish to be behind the T.U.C. in this respect. We on these Benches agree cordially with the right honourable gentleman, Mr. R. A. Butler, who in another place, while opposing the Bill, made it clear that in the view of the Opposition the sacrifices required as a result of devaluation should be shared by everyone in the community. I know well that differences of opinion can arise in connection with various points of economic reasoning thrown up by this Bill, which I have touched upon no doubt too briefly but in an attempt to suit the convenience of the House. I am not asking noble Lords, therefore, in any way to abandon their economic principles or economic lines of thought. But I would ask your Lordships—and in particular those who are to follow me—to consider the Bill in the spirit I have stressed and in the context which I have mentioned.
The more one considers the purposes of the Bill, the more certain one becomes that this measure, rough justice though it admittedly is and, indeed, must be, is the only effective way of promoting that equality of sacrifice which we all agree is right, proper and indispensable if every one of us is going to make his full contribution at this time. I know well that at this moment we are all equally determined that we shall make our full contribution, and therefore I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, realising that it casts new burdens on some, but recalling also that burdens are inevitably falling on all—which is not, perhaps, unnatural at a time when the fortunes of all of us and our families, whether our incomes come from dividends, salaries or wages, are equally at stake, as is the whole future of our country. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Pakenham.)
6.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, this is a Money Bill, certified as such by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Therefore, it is not necessary for the
904
noble Lord who has just spoken to persuade the House or to get a majority in favour of the measure. It becomes law because the House of Commons has adopted it; and we in this House certainly would never obstruct its passing. But it is right, I think, that we should spend a few minutes, even at this late hour, in considering the measure and the way in which it has been expounded—very charmingly and, if I may say so, brilliantly. But I think I should like to examine a little more closely one or two of the observations made.
I am sure I may say, not only on my, own behalf but on behalf of every noble Lord present, that I can confirm with all seriousness the proposition with which the noble Lord began his speech and to which he returned at the end of it. It is and ought to be accepted by everyone. Undoubtedly, when there is a burden to be borne, it should be shared by the citizens of this country in proper proportion; if there is a sacrifice to be made, nobody wants the sacrifice to fall upon one section of the community while another section escapes. Speaking as I am, with complete sincerity, I think we might proceed on that basis. It is possible to have different views as to what is the way to achieve the desired object. But that does not mean that there is unwillingness on the part of any decent, respectable citizen to take a share and to bear his proper responsibility.
There are two particular arguments put forward, one of which is in the realm of economics and the other is psychological. I do not think I approach this particular tax with any prejudice, but I am afraid I have formed the view that, regarded as a financial measure, on its merits, it is a bad and unjustified tax. If I am asked what is the explanation of it—and, it may be, in the minds of many people the excuse for it—I answer that the real explanation and excuse are psychological; and I am far from excluding, that as being altogether irrelevant in the world in which we are now living. All attempts to produce solid economic arguments in its favour are covering up its real purpose. That purpose is to try to demonstrate that the appeal that devaluation should not be followed by wage increases is an appeal which should be accepted because other people besides wage earners are going to suffer, too. That is the truth of

905
the matter; I am far from saying that you can get rid of it as being an irrelevant consideration. I try to face facts and look them in the face, and I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made this proposal in order to make more persuasive the appeal that devaluation should not be followed by wage increases.
Let us then note this in passing. The pretence (for it is nothing more than a pretence) which was current eight or nine weeks ago that writing down the pound would not have in many directions an adverse effect on some prices at home, and on the position of many people, is no longer one that will serve. Of course there is a real advantage to be obtained for the time being if the best use is made of the opportunity—if we have to accept the ignominious position of writing down the pound. But we have to bear in mind that it also has what I have called in this House recently a boomerang effect. It is bound to have the effect of making life on a small income more difficult than before for people who have limited resources. That must be so; and I wish very much that it had been said a little more clearly and frankly in the first instance. Whatever opportunities and advantages devaluation of the pound may give—and Heaven knows we all want them to be seized as fully as possible—the advantages would be neutralised if they led to a substantial increase in wages. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sees that perfectly well; and of course, it is in that connection that he has thought it necessary, for what I have called a psychological reason, to say in effect: "While I am urging you not to make any claim for an increase in wages because of the rise in the cost of living, I am hitting the profit-receiving section of the community, too."
Let me here interpose my warm agreement with what was said by the noble Lord opposite when he acknowledged the strenuous and statesmanlike efforts that are being made by the Trades Union Congress General Council to restrain additional wage claims. They have a most difficult task, and everybody who tries to look at the situation broadly must feel a great respect for the efforts they have made. There are some important trades—the iron and steel trade is a notable example—who have themselves made the most admirable approach to the problem.
906
I believe that with the consent of the whole trade they have agreed not to make a claim of this sort. My real complaint is that what has been done is characteristic of the Government attitude. They profess to regard the adverse consequences of devaluation in a sectional way, as if they fell only on the wage earner. That is not true. I cannot help thinking it would be a great ad vantage if the contrary were more boldly stated. The whole population suffers when the purchasing power of the pound falls. The person who in his or her old age draws a small income from investment of savings suffers in exactly the same way as the wage earner whose income does not buy so much. It seems to me a pity that there should be this sectional view of the matter, a view which is encouraged in some quarters, as though the disadvantages of devaluation were limited to the wage earner—whose wage will undoubtedly, owing to devaluation, tend to buy less because the value of the pound is likely to fall.
It may be said—and it is true—that there are a great many shareholders who are not very poor people. But our fiscal system has for a long time dealt with that matter. Our system deals with the difference between the rich and the poor very thoroughly. It is a system which imposes on larger incomes such swingeing taxes, whether the income comes from holding shares or anything else, as cannot be seen in any other country of the world. I am not making a "song and dance" about it, but that is the basis of our fiscal system, and it has been raised to heights which I think some people hardly realise. Therefore, my point is that the disadvantage which accompanies, or may accompany, devaluation is not really a disadvantage which is suffered by the wage earner as such. It is suffered by everybody who has a similar income. As for higher incomes, they are already well taken care of. The richer members of society are already skinned and bled by steep differential taxation which it would be difficult for even the most ingenious man—and for the noble Lord opposite who is a very ingenious man—to increase. I think that is the true view of the matter.
Yet the argument in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made the announcement on September 27, was plainly this: that if industry was going to take advantage of devaluation

907
by working harder and exporting more, then he must see to it that shareholders did not benefit by larger profits. He said that, in reference to the average profit-earner, there would be a tendency
"on the whole to benefit by the change, especially in the case of exporters."
I am sure that I wish nothing but good results from this step of devaluation which we have been forced to take, but I have a feeling that the Chancellor of the Exchequer greatly underestimated the difficulty of getting into the dollar market under the new conditions, though we ought all to recognise that great efforts are being made by many firms and companies. If his objective was to tax extra profits resulting from this switch-over, then surely the means adopted in this Bill are clumsy and extraordinary. More than once it has been pointed out that one of the ambitions which we ought to entertain, and one of the wishes of the Treasury, is that we should attract American capital to this country. But how is that encouraged by the Government saying to exporters, "If you do, and you really succeed in exporting, then we are going to increase the tax upon your profits"?
We all understand that the increase is only in the profits tax on distributed profits. At present, an industrial company is charged with profits tax before income tax is exacted—20 per cent. on distributed profits and 10 per cent. on profits which after taxation are put to reserve. The increase now proposed is to change the 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. That increase is to fall on all distributed profits, whether or not they are made by a new drive into the American market. If we take a company which with great effort—it may be at considerable risk—endeavours in the national interest to shift its sales to America, it surely cannot be disputed that this is a curious way of providing incentives to induce it to do so. Some people who talk about it seem to think that, almost automatically, thanks to devaluation, a company which is seeking export trade to America will get the whole benefit of the writing down of the pound.
I do not claim to know as much about business as business people do. In my professional life, I have been consulted by business people only when they have
908
been in difficulties or could not understand their contracts. That is all I know about business, but I should have thought that one of the things which might easily happen would be that you find you must give to your American purchaser some portion of the benefit resulting from devaluation, and put up with a very small portion of the advantage which devaluation gives you. The result of a tax of this sort would seem to me in some cases to make all the difference between a company being able to attempt this new effort and not being able to do so. Surely, it is an odd thing that we should be prepared to step up the tax on profits just when many companies will need not a less but a greater incentive to switch their efforts from the sterling to the dollar market.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said just now something about how the tax would work out in practice. He emphasised that the increased tax is only on profit that is distributed. But I am speaking in the presence of some who know much more about this than I do, when I ask: Is that really the way in which a board of directors will have to consider the matter? A company which has to pay the tax has, I apprehend, to decide how to deal with its balance of profit as a whole. There is a figure worked out on the principles which the income tax accepts which says that there is x as the balance of profits for us to deal with. Of course, there is already a limitation of dividend in practice which is almost universal. While it is true that this tax is calculated only on the distributed profit, the tax is paid out of the common fund, and surely it is obvious that in many cases the extra money will be found for the Revenue by taking it out of what would otherwise go to reserve. I was astonished to hear the proposition that all that a board of directors have to consider is, "Have we made sufficient reserves?" and that the shareholder comes in at the end, if he comes in at all.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment? I did not state the proposition in that extreme form, as I think the noble and learned Viscount will recall, but I did suggest that a prudent company would consider its reserves first.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The two things are considered very much together, but there is this consideration which I do not

909
think the noble Lord has in mind. The directors have to think twice, when they have made a profit, before they reduce the regular rate of dividend. Not only have they a duty to their ordinary shareholders, because they have their money, but there is also this point: if they did not do their utmost to maintain a proper rate of dividend when they made profits, it would be more and more difficult for that company thereafter to raise more capital. The terms on which it would be able to expand its business would be worsened. Incidentally, when it comes to paying death duties, the ordinary shares are worth much less. It is not some peculiar kind of favouritism, which I think in another connection is called open favouritism, which causes directors to decide to distribute a dividend; it is because when the circumstances reasonably justify it, it is their duty to do so; and though sometimes for want of profits they cannot do it, they have to consider the claims and the interests of their own enterprise and of the dividend owner, as well as the claims on reserves.
Your Lordships will observe that what is here proposed is not to stop the paying of increased dividends; it is a question of whether the directors' duty to ordinary shareholders does not require them, if it is possible, to pay the same dividends as before. When you talk about a freeze in wages what you mean is that wages should not go up. Is a freeze in dividends, in the sense of saying that, if possible, dividends should not go down, an abominable thing? In the case of dividends, what is sought is to avoid, if it can properly be done, a shrinkage. The issue in the case of wages at the present time is whether there are good reasons which would justify restraint on an increase of wages. But if the pound becomes less valuable, in both cases the money paid, whether it is in dividends or as a wage, loses its purchasing power in exactly the same way.
Then my noble friend briefly advanced an argument connected with a much more difficult matter, and one on which I step with real delicacy—namely, the subject of whether or not this tax will operate in an anti-inflationary way. You must not say "deflationary" in these days; the word is too short. We must say "anti-inflationary."
LORD PAKENHAM: Or "disinflationary."
VISCOUNT SIMON: Yes, that is a very long word too. What really will be the effect of this tax? It seems to me that the effect of this tax in reducing the spending power of the shareholder will be trumpery as compared with the disadvantage which it will bring about in discouraging reserves. I quite agree with the noble Lord that nothing could be more important than reserves, especially in these times, because plant is difficult to renew especially when it is going to cost two or three times as much as the old plant. It seems to me that we were faced with very much the same argument (which was, I thought, a false argument) as when we discussed that "once-for-all" special contribution not long ago. Serious economists, like Lord Pethick-Lawrence, as soon as they looked at it, dropped that nonsense about the "once-for-all" special contribution being justified as an anti-inflationary measure, because it was nothing of the kind. It was, of course, produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to show that he was quite prepared to hit people who were supposed to be capitalists as well as others. In fact, the special contribution did not operate and does not operate as an anti-inflationary measure. It is paid largely by realising capital and, if you consider its effects as a whole, it seems to me to have had a disastrous influence on national savings, as I recollect Lord Mackintosh's deputation to the Treasury feared and warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the case, for it showed to large numbers of people what happened if they did save.
Without any desire to take a partisan side, when the matter is thought out I do not think the economic arguments for this tax are very strong. I do not dispute that it has to commend it the fact that it has a psychological effect; and if it be necessary that the whole country should pull together to adopt such measures, well, that is to some extent an explanation. But I must say that I cannot think it is a justifiable way of looking at the matter, because, as I have pointed out, it is completely fallacious to suppose that because X is earning his income by a form of wage he suffers by devaluation, whereas Y, who is earning the same income out of a dividend, does

911
not suffer. The two things are exactly the same. My own conclusion would have been that it is very difficult to find an economic justification for the tax. I do not want to make too much of it, because, when all is said and done, it produces £13,000,000. But the real explanation of it is that it is hoped by imposing it to create the impression that shareholders as well as wage earners are being made to bear a burden. That is perfectly right: they should both bear a burden, and so should we all. The misfortune is that, without this tax, shareholders are bearing that burden already.
7.15 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I regret that this subject of profits tax should have been taken in your Lordships' House at so late an hour after so much other business, because frankly I think the economic and political consequences—I say advisedly "political consequences"—of this profits tax are considerably more important than a great many people realise up to date. First, may I reinforce in the few remarks that I propose to make at this late hour what has been indicated by the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down. The economic justification for this particular measure was stated somewhat otherwise, or with different emphasis, by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in another place, when he put as the first reason and justification for this tax, that the rise in tax is intended first of all to restrain spending, and only in the second place did he quote some of the points which the noble Lord has made. With all respect to those remarks and to what the noble Lord has said, to talk about the purpose of a tax the net effect of which is to produce £13,000,000 as being to restrain spending, is just complete nonsense; £13,000,000 either way cannot make a particle of difference so far as the inflationary situation is concerned, more especially if, as the noble Lord will be the first to agree, what does affect the inflationary situation is not the amount that is distributed by way of dividend but very largely what the Government does with the taxes when they have received them. To use that argument is, to my mind, to vitiate the rest of what the Economic Secretary
912
to the Treasury said in defence of this increase.
LORD PAKENHAM: I would like to answer the noble Lord because I do not consider he is doing himself justice in his remarks, and I am always anxious to help him. Is the noble Lord telling us now that, contrary altogether to the doctrines he has preached with such ardour and lucidity for the last two or three years, the inflationary situation is not affected by the policy of distribution of dividends one way or another?
LORD RENNELL: I think it is very much more affected by the policy of the Government in using the taxes that they collect. That, as a matter of fact, is what I did say and what I have said in the past. However, I want to pass on to his own particular point; and, in his remarks, the noble Lord has given me much more of a loophole than I had expected. He spoke about this tax as being an example of rough justice. He admitted that it might not fall everywhere exactly where it ought to, but he said that it would roughly justify itself as a rough measure of justice. In the economic situation in which we find ourselves it is not, I think, so important to consider whether a particular economic measure is one of rough justice or precise justice, as it is to consider whether or not it is expedient. It may well be that there is a psychological effect which is desirable, and to that the noble and learned Viscount has already referred. But Whether that could better have been achieved in this or in some other way is worth examining.
The consequences of this particular tax are—as I submit and propose to show—wholly inexpedient in present circumstances. One of the real difficulties in which I find myself, however, in commenting upon the economic and financial policy of His Majesty's Government, arises from the fact that they themselves do not foresee at the time they do things the consequences of what they do; and when those consequences afterwards become apparent they attribute them to totally different causes. In a recent debate in your Lordships' House on the economic situation, we had a fairly vigorous attack, or statement, by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on what he appeared to regard as a conspiracy on the

913
part of economists, business people, financial journalists and journalists everywhere to diminish and depreciate the efforts of the Government. That is a typical example of not foreseeing the consequences of what one does. That reaction was the direct consequence of cuts which, in the estimation of people in this country who are supposed to know and also in the estimation of people abroad, were considered to be insufficient. Because there was criticism that they were insufficient, that criticism was attributed to a conspiracy to depreciate the efforts of the Government.
Here we have another example of the same sort. This tax, which by the most optimistic showing can produce only a matter of £13,000,000 net, taking into account diminution in income tax which will be obtained by imposing a profits tax, will in my view have certain very clear consequences. I am not going now into the questions of incentive motives or risk-bearing capital—I will deal with those in a minute—but they have a direct bearing on the whole of our balance of payments. I will show exactly and precisely how that arises. If the noble Lord will cast his mind back over the interesting debates which we have had in this House on the balance of payments, he will agree, I think, that it has been stated that in the two or three years ahead the balance of payments will not, in fact, be rectified by the visible exports and imports of this country being made to balance; they will be made to balance (this is my view and certainly the view of the noble Lord, Lord Brand) only by the influx of capital from other countries—in other words, by invisible exports.
The principal sources of invisible exports of that sort—namely the investment of capital in this country, of which we are, on the admission of everyone on all sides, in very sore need because we are not creating enough capital ourselves to do everything we wish to do—are America or foreign countries. Is the scale of taxation under which large public companies, and companies generally, in this country are operating to-day such as to induce any American capital, for instance, to come into this country? The answer is certainly "No." Does an increase in the distributed profits tax on companies here help or hinder the entry of American
914
capital that might have been hesitant before about coming in? The answer is clearly that it hinders. That fact has a further bearing on our present difficulties. As all your Lordships know, there is a very substantial amount of foreign capital and American capital in this country now. A great deal of it has remained here, the hope being that the situation would improve so that it could be put to more fruitful endeavour by investment in this country in industrial enterprise. But it has, in fact, been leaking out. Why has it been leaking out? Because prospects under the régime of company taxation here are now so black that no American or any foreigner who has money over here is likely to leave it here in order to invest it in this country.
It seems therefore that these economic measures which His Majesty's Government from time to time propose, should be regarded not only in the light of what is rough justice, but in the light of what it is expedient in our present economic situation to do or not to do. I suggest that an increase in the tax on distributed profits, however small, will have the result that people who have money here will take it away, and those who might invest money here will not do so. The noble Lord made some point about the number of applications made to the Board of Trade recently on behalf of enterprises for which there were insufficient resources in the country. He attempted to show from that that there was no lack of people here who wanted to invest their money in risk-bearing capital.
LORD PAKENHAM: It is a term which Lord Bland introduced.
LORD RENNELL: That is true. It means that there is not enough capital here to go round.
LORD PAKENHAM: If I may intervene, I would say, rather, that it means that there are not enough people in this country for us to go further than full employment.
LORD RENNELL: I should say that capital was not being created in this country at a sufficient rate to meet our needs. The only way to supplement the scarcity is to get the capital from somewhere else. We are not likely to get it from anywhere else by imposing penal taxation on capital being used in risk-bearing enterprises.

915
There is one point which I should like cleared up; perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to deal with it when he replies. He spoke generally about the economic effects of the profits tax as a whole. I believe that a clear and sharp distinction ought to be made between a tax on distributed profits and a tax on undistributed profits, the consequences of the two being very considerably different. I do not entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount in speaking of a common pool out of which all taxation has to come. I think that the order in which taxation is levied does have an effect. I have no doubt that, of the two profits taxes, a tax on undistributed profits is a great deal more vicious than one on distributed profits, because a tax on undistributed profits is a bar to the accumulation of reserves. I would go so far as to say that if the present proposal had involved merely an increase in the distributed profits tax, accompanied by a pro tanto or smaller decrease in the undistributed profits tax, I should feel much less opposed to it than I do now.
I would now like to ask the noble Lord to look at some figures, with which no doubt he is familiar. When one does this, I suggest, one begins to wonder whether a profits tax has any economic justification as opposed to a psychological one. The noble Lord will have seen a recent analysis in the Economist of the profits of a large number of companies—in point of fact, nearly three thousand companies whose reports were published between October, 1948, and September, 1949. The total profits tax figure, which I take it includes both distributed and undistributed profits tax, is only £119,000,000. On the total Budget that is a relatively small sum, and I wonder—and here I come back to the question of expediency—whether if this matter had been examined from a long-term economic view, instead of from a short-term psychological one, it would not have been more equitable and reasonable to leave industry with a larger proportion of earnings in the form of undistributed profits free from tax, to accumulate for reserves and replacements, than to extract from industry so small a sum. Actually, the net sum is a great deal smaller than £119,000,000, because that has to be taken into conjunction with income tax, and the net amount is something of the order
916
of £60,000,000. in the light of the scale of our taxation as a whole, would it not have been much better to leave that £60,000,000 in company reserves than to take it into revenue and use it for the purposes for which we know the Government use it?
In considering this profits tax in connection with the w hole question of taxation, one ought to be guided by expediency rather than trot out some rather trumpery arguments about the dis-inflationary effect of taking another £13,000,000 from this source.
7.32 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, as usual I am in the hands of the House at all hours, and I am ready to continue the discussion for a considerable time, but I imagine that is hardly the wish of your Lordships. I acknowledge the few kind words used about me by the noble and learned Viscount. He is such a Goliath of debate, and I am such a David, that he must forgive me if I make use of a sling to cast a tiny projectile in his direction.
VISCOUNT SIMON: So long as the noble Lord does not hit me in the eye!
LORD PAKENHAM: I know that is rather unfair, but no one can stand it more easily than he. I cannot help bringing together what the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has said, rather contemptuously, about rough justice and what was said by the noble Viscount in 1937 about rough justice. When the noble Viscount was introducing, very wisely I am sure, what was a profits tax of 5 per cent. in some cases and 4 per cent. in others—I am referring to the National Defence Contribution—he used these excellent words:
"Let me come to a major point of the scheme. The Committee will observe in the White Paper…we suggest there should be a tax of 5 per cent. in the case of companies and of 4 per cent. in the case of partnerships or individuals…What is the reason for that? Of course the reason is, as far as may be, to produce equal treatment. It can only be done as a measure of rough justice…"
When a five per cent. profits tax was placed before the public by the noble Viscount, much more eloquently than by me, the argument about rough justice was very properly imported into the discussion.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am very willing to receive that or any other projectile from the sling of the noble Lord. I do not seem very hard hit. Of course, the distinction was that companies go on and partnerships change, and it was necessary, as has been found necessary in many other connections for the purposes of taxation, to draw a distinction between them. That is all.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Viscount is not averse to using the argument of rough justice when he finds it suitable. Therefore, I am sure the noble Viscount would not wish me to apologise for using the same argument to appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. There are two main arguments in this connection which I feel sure we shall wish to explore on other occasions and I shall say little about them to-night; and there is one argument about which I will say a few sentences. The first main argument advanced by noble Lords against the Bill is that it discourages foreign investors. As to that, I should point out that the subsidiaries of foreign companies are liable to the lower rate of tax of 10 per cent. I do not wish to put it too crudely, but the Government do not feel that in making our broad economic and social dispositions in this country we must he guided mainly by the view which foreign investors take of our economy. We want our national credit to stand very high, but we cannot accept the view that our Health Service and our other great social provisions, agreed to by most of us, should be cut down at the whim, and it may be under the more careful calculation, of some foreign investor, whether American or otherwise.
The second main argument is this. The noble and learned Viscount raised an issue which seemed to me to lurk behind the whole of the discussions in another place. He said that we must all accept the principle of equality of sacrifice; but, unless I misunderstood him, he said that already the sacrifices being borne by the profit receivers are so great that no further sacrifices can reasonably be expected of them at this juncture. When new sacrifices are required at the present time, the noble Viscount does not feel that profit earners should bear their share of them. That is not my idea of equality of sacrifice at the present time. The noble Viscount thinks that the work of the
918
Government in balancing our economy has been carried too far in one direction. We take great pride in the measures carried out by this Government and the consequent redistribution of wealth. There is that difference between the noble Viscount and me, and I can only say that we take completely different views on that issue.
I come to one matter which arises closely in connection with the present Bill. The noble Viscount suggested, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, suggested perhaps more strongly, that it was nonsense—I think that was the word the noble Lord used—to attribute any disinflationary effect to this Bill. It is only £13,000,000—what is £13,000,000 in this connection! I do not want to twist the noble Lord's argument, but it could be twisted with no great difficulty to point the conclusion that a larger tax would have some effect and might therefore receive the approbation of the noble Lord. I do not imagine he means that, but his argument would lead in that direction. May I repeat that, taken alone, the £13,000,000 has a small economic effect, but it must be considered as part of a complexity of measures, of which the others did not require legislative sanction and are broadly described as "cuts."
The noble Viscount said he did not feel there was an economic argument for this Bill. I am not complaining about his reception of the Bill—on the whole, I thought that he was much kinder than the noble Lord—but he did say that he did not feel there was a solid economic argument for this measure, because it can do so little. Let me put it in a couple of sentences. The economic effect of all these emergency measures is strong and real and there is no nonsense about it at all. They represent an essential provision at this time. Because £13,000,000 is only a small part of the economic steps being taken, the economic effect of this one measure is small. The economic argument, therefore, carries us to support of the economy measures as a whole.
Then I come to the psychological argument. Here there are two arguments: the moral argument—the argument for justice—and the psychological argument, that justice must not only be done hut must seem to be done. Once it is decided to impose a tax of a certain magnitude or complexity, then it becomes a moral

919
and psychological issue as to how that tax or those cuts are to be distributed. Then you come to the point that if the main burden will fall on the poor, part of the burden, at any rate—call it footling, call it moderate, or what you will—must fall on the profit-earning section of the community.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, raised a number of other points, and perhaps on another occasion we can deal in detail with his contention that the profit receivers are not, broadly speaking, better off than the wage earners, if that is what was in his mind.
VISCOUNT SIMON: If some of them are, they are taxed very much more.
LORD PAKENHAM: I can only say that the burden must fall more heavily on the broader hacks. We are back on the old argument. The noble Viscount feels that already taxation has been carried too far at the expense of the rich. We on this side do not accept that. We approach this particular measure in the light of asking for equality of fresh sacrifice at this time. I appreciate the attitude of the noble and learned Viscount, and also the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, although I may not seem to. I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading, and I am grateful to noble Lords for having helped it through with such considerable speed.
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of November 17), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL
7.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in moving that this Report be now received, I would like to make a short statement concerning two matters that were raised in the form of questions by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, during the Committee stage. In Committee, on the Question whether Clause 15 stand part of the Bill,
920
the noble Lord asked whether the governing bodies of hospitals which were contemplating agreements under this clause should bear in mind the possibility of
"an unknown and unlimited liability in the matter of a deficiency contribution to the Minister's superannuation account."
The detailed machinery to be applied to these agreements is still being studied, but it is possible that the calculation of actuarial deficiencies in the schemes of particular hospitals would, contrary to the impression which, on advice, I gave in the course of my reply, involve excessively detailed administrative work. It will therefore probably be necessary to fall back on the usual method of dealing with these arrangements, which is as the noble Lord outlined in his speech.
The second part of the statement has reference to the new clause dealing with additional functions of the medical practices committee. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, asked whether there would not be consequential Amendments to Sections 33 and 34 of the Act of 1946. I am advised that no Amendment of these sections is required. The new clause does not in any way conflict with Section 33 of the Act of 1946. There is no intention of empowering the medical practices committee, instead of the executive councils, to arrange for the distribution of patients—indeed, the powers conferred in the new clause could not be used for this purpose. Section 34 of the Act of 1946 does, as the noble Lord stated in the House, limit the functions which devolve on the medical practices committee. It is this limitation which is removed by the new clause, and it is not necessary to write any words into Section 34 in order to achieve this. I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for having gone into the questions which I asked on Committee stage, and for telling me that no amendment to Section 33 of the 1946 Act is intended, and that no amendment of Section 34 is necessary, because that is what the new clause that was put into the Bill already does. I am also obliged to the noble Lord for saying that I was right on the point about superannuation. I made that point only because I thought it was right that hospitals who were contemplating embarking on this scheme

921
should know the liabilities attaching, as I indicated in my speech on the Committee stage. As there are no Amendments down for Report, I presume that we shall go straight ahead with the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to, land Amendments reported accordingly.

VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [H.L.]
An Amendment reported (according to Order).
PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
WAR DAMAGED SITES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

WRITTEN ANSWERS RAILWAY DELAYS IN EASTERN REGION
LORD STRABOLGIasked His Majesty's Government if they are aware of the frequent and serious delays on the old Great Eastern section of the former L.N.E.R., now British Railways, between Liverpool Street and various
922
places in Norfolk, and particularly from Norwich to Liverpool Street; if they are aware that the reason usually given is points trouble, and will they state what are the technical or mechanical reasons for this; and whether any steps have been taken to effect au improvement.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a matter for the British Transport Commission. I have referred the noble Lord's question to them, and they will be communicating with him.

EXCHEQUER RECEIPTS FROM SCOTLAND
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDasked His Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the deep concern felt in Scotland at their professed inability to give even the slightest indication of the annual amounts contributed to, and received from, the Imperial Exchequer by Scotland; and if they are prepared to take the necessary steps to have these figures made available in the future, even if only to an approximate degree of accuracy and completeness.
LORD PAKENHAM: His Majesty's Government have had representations from time to time on this matter. These representations have been carefully considered, but His Majesty's Government have nothing new to add to the answer given on October 18, in reply to the noble Earl's Question on the same subject. The reasons for this answer are elaborated in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the White Paper which was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1948 (Cmd. 7308), a copy of which I am sending to the noble Earl.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eight o'clock.