Sitting of 29 November 1949

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

    Awards
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of awards of the Commander of the British Empire, Order of the British Empire, and Member of the British Empire, respectively, awarded to serving officers and other members of the Territorial Army since August, 1945.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): Officers of the Territorial Army have received, since August, 1945, two awards of Commander of the British Empire, five of Officer of the British Empire and seven of Member of the British Empire. One warrant officer has received the award of Member of the British Empire.

    Camp Site, Easingwold
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Easingwold Rural District Council require the site of Crabmill Lane Camp, Easingwold, for the urgent need of housing in their area; that this camp which was requisitioned at the outbreak of war is now unoccupied; and whether he will permit this camp to be derequisitioned so that it can be used for housing.
    Mr. M. Stewart: This camp is now no longer required by the War Department and, in accordance with normal procedure, has just been notified as redundant to the Ministry of Works. Any application by the local authorities for the use of this site for housing would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works.
    Mr. Turton: Can the hon. Gentleman say at what date it was declared redundant?
    Mr. Stewart: Not the exact date, but very recently indeed.

    Discharge by Purchase
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Secretary of State for War how long it is proposed to continue the ban on the purchase of discharge by soldiers employed as clerks.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I regret that, in view of the present requirements of the Army, it will be necessary for some time to continue the ban on the purchase of discharge by soldiers employed as clerks. The matter is, however, kept constantly under review, and the ban will be lifted as soon as the situation permits.
    Sir R. Ross: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, by denying this particular class of soldiers the normal right of every soldier in peacetime, the War Department is creating a great deterrent against anyone volunteering for this class of work?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in talking about this as a "normal right." It has always been a privilege. It can never be claimed as a right.

    Leave Centre, B.A.O.R. (Cost)
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for War what is the cost of running No. 8 Leave Centre, British Army of Occupation of the Rhine, situated in Erwald; and how much has been expended on this centre from its inception to the nearest possible date.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The cost to Army funds of running this leave centre is about £6,000 a year. The cost since its inception amounts to some £27,000.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it the case that this leave camp is in the French zone of Austria? Why is it not possible to have a more economical camp in the British zone?
    Mr. Stewart: We were anxious to provide somewhere for the British Army of the Rhine to go on local leave where the soldiers would have a change, and be able to go outside Germany, particularly

    919
    for winter sports. I should add, however, that it was not anticipated that there would be a cost like this, and we are considering whether it should be maintained any longer.

    War Office
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War (1) the numbers of officers, other ranks and civilians, respectively, now employed in the War Office; and what were the corresponding numbers on 1st January, 1939;
    (2) how many buildings in addition to the main building in Whitehall are now in use as office accommodation for the personnel of the War Office; and what was the number of buildings used for this purpose on 1st January, 1939.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Information as to the strengths of War Office headquarters branches on 1st January, 1939, is not readily available. The total strength, military and civilian, in April, 1939, was approximately 3,700. The corresponding figure at 1st October, 1949, was 7,013, consisting of 1,346 officers, 702 other ranks and 4,965 civilians. These figures exclude certain War Office staff located at command headquarters.
    In April, 1939, 13 buildings and blocks of houses, other than the main War Office building, were occupied. At the present time 17 such buildings and blocks of houses are occupied. As, however, has previously been pointed out to the hon. and gallant Member, this comparison is of little real value as the buildings concerned range from large blocks of offices to quite small houses.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Have these increases in personnel resulted in increased effIciency or increased readiness for war of the troops; if not, can either the increased numbers or the cost involved be justified; and by reducing the staffs cannot the Secretary of State reduce the buildings of the War Office to at least what they were in April, 1939, and if possible still further?
    Mr. Stewart: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will consider the responsibilities we were fulfilling and the numbers of men in the Army at the two dates he will appreciate that there were bound to be larger figures at the later date. The
    920
    figures for both staff and buildings have fallen rapidly in recent years, and we are giving particular attention to not occupying more premises than are essential.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it not a fact that the numbers are very much greater than is actually necessary; that there is far too much pen and ink work as opposed to the practical training work now done in the War Office and in the commands; and will the Under-Secretary see that economies are made in the national interest and in the interests of the Army?
    Mr. Stewart: Well, in the last two years these numbers have been reduced by about 30 per cent., which suggests that we are anxious not to have excessive paper work.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that a very large number of military personnel in the headquarters of the War Office are not employed on work that could be better done by civilian staff?
    Mr. Stewart: That is rather a different question, but I have no reason to believe that is so.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Is not this part of the plan of the Government to implement their fallacious promise of full employment?

    Young Soldiers (Moral Welfare)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the remark of Mr. Justice Oliver on 7th November, 1949, when he sentenced a sergeant to 12 years' imprisonment for 31 cases of offences against young soldiers committed at Catterick Camp, and to the remarks of Mr. Justice Stable on 11th November, 1949, when he sentenced an officer of the Army Catering Corps to six years' imprisonment for seven similar offences committed at Catterick Camp; and what steps he is taking to improve moral conditions at Catterick Camp, and to reassure parents whose sons are being called up and posted there.
    Mr. M. Stewart: My attention has been drawn to these two deplorable cases, in the former of which seven young soldiers were involved, and to the remarks made by Mr. Justice Oliver and Mr. Justice Stable. I can assure the hon. Member

    921
    that the military authorities at Catterick Camp, and elsewhere, are fully alive to the need for proper care and supervision to ensure the moral welfare of young soldiers, and the attention of all commanding officers was drawn, earlier this year, to their responsibilities in this matter. I am satisfied that the discipline and morale of Catterick Garrison are of a high standard, and that there are available excellent recreational and educational facilities.
    Details of the conviction and sentence in the case of the sergeant have been published in District Orders as a warning to others, and the General Officer Commanding, Catterick District, has sent a personal letter to all commanding officers in the garrison. If any parents or relatives would like to visit Catterick there is a Navy, Army and Air Force hostel at which they are welcome to stay.
    Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the officer mentioned in the second part of the Question had been previously convicted some years ago for a similar offence; and what steps do the Army authorities take to secure that an officer with such a record is not placed in charge of young soldiers?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, I was aware of that. I have inquired into it and I find that at the time this officer was given a short service commission the most careful inquiries were made, as is the normal practice, Which ought to have revealed this fact but which, for some reason I have not been able to discover, did not reveal it. But there was no failure of duty on the part of the War Office to make the proper inquiries. Had the facts come to our notice, of course, he would not have been commissioned.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Do these cases not show the wisdom of the War Office policy in trying to maintain the chaplaincy, educational and welfare services at the highest available level?
    Mr. Stewart: Certainly.
    Mr. Turton: Will the Minister review his method of inquiry into officers about to receive short service commissions to see that in future these lapses do not occur?
    Mr. Stewart: I will do that, but I would point out that in this case
    922
    inquiries were fully and properly made. What was lacking was that we were not given the correct answer.

    Stanford Battle Area
    Mr. Dyeasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether it is his intention to allow any of the Stanford Battle Area to be cultivated for crops in 1950 as in recent years;
    (2) whether he has completed arrangements with the owners of land involved in the Stanford Battle Area;
    (3) what additional lands he proposes to acquire in the neighbourhood of the Stanford Battle Area; and for what purpose.
    Mr. M. Stewart: As much land as possible in the Stanford Battle Area will be let for cultivation during 1950, but since intensive training will be carried out there, the area let will be less than hitherto. Arrangements with the owners of land involved in the Stanford Battle Area have not yet been completed. Negotiations are proceeding. My Department is at present considering the acquisition of West Tofts Camp, consisting of 43 acres, as a week-end training centre, to be used in connection with the Stanford Area.
    Mr. Dye: Is my hon. Friend aware that none of the farmers who had previously been cultivating this land have been notified that they can do so again; that if they had been notified, much of the land would have already been cropped; and is it not of the utmost importance that this land, which has grown good crops for the last three years, should be cropped again as much as possible?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. As I have indicated, we shall not be able to make as much available for cultivation as in the past, but with regard to what we can make available I will see that the arrangements are pressed on.
    Mr. Dye: Will my hon. Friend also see that the arrangements with the owners of the land are completed so that the boundaries of this area are defined and known, and that payment is made for it; and is he not aware that his Department has already put up notices that it is already War Department property, although it has not yet been paid for?
    Mr. Stewart: With regard to most of the owners, we are still awaiting replies from them.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Would the Minister confer with his colleagues upon the general policy of land acquisition, because, bit by bit, more and more of the land of Norfolk is being taken by Service Departments, and farmers are quite uncertain where it is going to stop?
    Mr. Stewart: That is another and a larger question.

    Private, Parachute Regiment (Sentence)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for War what action he has now taken on reconsideration of the case of Private Watson, Parachute Regiment, who was sentenced to 112 days' detention for failing to jump from an aircraft.
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for War if he can now make a further statement about remitting the sentence passed on 14473176 Private G. E. Watson. Parachute Regiment.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I have made detailed inquiries into this case. After confirmation of the sentence of the court martial by the General Officer Commanding, Aldershot District, Private Watson's commanding officer recommended that the sentence should be put into execution and that, subject to his good conduct, the sentence should be reviewed after 42 days with a view to suspension. The General Officer Commanding, Aldershot District, also recommended that the sentence should be reviewed after 42 days.
    The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command, who is the superior military authority in law in this case, in view of the nature of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed, decided personally to examine the matter forthwith, and after due consideration came to the conclusion that no immediate action was called for, but gave instructions that, as the normal review after 42 days would in fact fall on Christmas Day, the review was to be brought forward and would take place before the Christmas period, on 16th December.
    The steps taken to date by the military authorities have been in accordance with normal practice. I have, however, called
    924
    for the papers in order to place them before my right hon. Friend on his return from the Middle East.
    Mr. Blackburn: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I correct a statement I made when this case was previously raised, as I have received some correspondence on it? I said that in time of war it was not the practice to court martial soldiers who refused to jump. That statement was not correct, made in that bald way. The fact is that it was not the normal practice to court martial soldiers in the course of their training if they decided not to jump. May I now ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that the statement he has made today, with its implications, will be welcomed by all those who are interested in this case?
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this unfortunate soldier is a constituent of mine—[Laughter.] I make that remark from the Service and not the political point of view—that his family are most distressed at the sentence he has received, and that likewise the country is shocked; will the hon. Gentleman take immediate steps to see that this sentence is again considered at once; and if he is unable to do it himself, will he communicate by cable with his right hon. Friend, who I understand is at present in foreign fields?
    Mr. Stewart: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this case will be considered in the very near future.
    Mr. Dumpleton: Has expert psychological opinion been consulted as to whether this is a case of phobia; if not, why not; and will it be?
    Mr. Stewart: Oh, yes, Sir, there was a psychiatrist's report.
    Mr. McGovern: Would it not be advisable, in order that he may experience it himself, that the Secretary of State should jump from one of these aircraft?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that I do not think that is a very relevant suggestion. He would realise, if he had been here last week, that it has not even the merit of originality.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that this boy will, at the earliest

    925
    moment, be transferred to a branch of the Army where he can prove himself to be an efficient soldier?
    Mr. Stewart: I did inform the House last week that he had already been transferred.
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for War what factors were taken into consideration when 14473176 Private G. E. Watson's sentence of 112 days' detention was confirmed.
    Mr. M. Stewart: In confirming a sentence of a court martial a confirming officer takes into account all the relevant factors which affect the case. In the case of Private Watson's court martial, these factors would include: The gravity of the offence; the circumstances in which it was committed; the age and character of the accused; the normal procedure by which the case can be reviewed, and the implications on discipline of a mitigation of the sentence on confirmation; the medical state of the accused at the time of the offence; whether the sentence is likely to increase or diminish the efficiency of the accused as a soldier.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the general officer commanding, when confirming this sentence, had before him a recent psychiatrist's report on this man, and if he was aware of the widespread concern that this case has caused?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, there was a psychiatrist's report, and I think that everyone is aware of the concern expressed about this matter.
    Earl Winterton: In order to satisfy my hon. Friend, may I ask whether there are psychiatrists' reports now for every offence in the Army, and, if so, is that necessary?
    Mr. Stewart: Not for every offence, but I think that most of us would agree that there was a case for getting a pyschiatrist's opinion in this case.

    Honorary Colonels
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for War upon what basis honorary colonels are appointed; what are their purpose and duties; how many were there in 1938 and in 1948; and how many have been appointed in each of the years 1947, 1948 and 1949.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Honorary colonels who are appointed to Territorial Army units have normally had a distinguished record in the Fighting Services, and are persons of high standing in the locality in which the unit serves. They are appointed for a term of five years subject to certain age limits. They are expected to help and advise the Commanding Officer on all matters affecting the unit, but they do not exercise any executive command. There were 212 honorary colonels in 1938 and 563 in 1948. The numbers appointed in 1947, 1948 and 1949 were 141, 93 and 35, respectively.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: My hon. Friend has had both military and administrative experience himself. Does he consider that these appointments are any longer necessary, and, if so, will he ask his right hon. Friend to consider appointing in future only those with military experience?
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is not the Under-Secretary aware that these appointments involve no expense to the public, and that they are very much appreciated by the units concerned?
    Mr. Stewart: It is the case, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that these appointments do not involve any expense to the public. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that in a matter like this affecting the Territorial Army, we ought to pay a good deal of attention to the people who do the work of the Territorial Army in the locality, who have expressed the view that these appointments are of value.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that these officers render invaluable service to units in welfare and recruiting matters?
    Mr. Stewart: Certainly.
    Mr. Gallacher: Can my hon. Friend say if in the list of honorary colonels there is a well-known trade-unionist or a worker from the factories?
    Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Member will put that question down, I will certainly do my best to answer it.

    Sentenced Soldier (Home Leave)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for War why Private Boniface of the Queen's Royal Regiment, B.A.O.R.5. was

    927
    not granted home leave after his return from 13 months' imprisonment in Russian hands; what sentence of imprisonment this young soldier is now serving for misdemeanours since his return; and if, in view of the hardships which Private Boniface has undergone, he will arrange for him to have home leave immediately.
    Mr. M. Stewart: In view of the hardships which Private Boniface had suffered during his confinement with the Russians he was admitted to a military hospital for rest and treatment immediately after his escape. A few days after his discharge, while waiting to go on home leave, he went absent. He was later apprehended and awarded 14 days' detention. On release from detention he again went absent, was again apprehended and awarded seven days' detention. This sentence expired on 27th November and Private Boniface is now being sent to this country on leave.

    Officer Students, Manchester (Journey)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for War how many men were in the colonel's party ordered to travel on the 10.5 a.m. train from London Road, Manchester, to Euston, London, on 11th November, 1949; how many were officers; what were their ranks; and on what duties had they been engaged or were they undertaking.
    Mr. M. Stewart: This party consisted of 21 officers of the rank of major and above. They were students at a course of instruction at the College of Technology, Manchester, and with War Office authority were visiting the Business Efficiency Exhibition in London, a visit which the college authorities considered an essential feature of the course.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Can my hon. Friend say how long that visit took and what was the cost of it?
    Mr. Stewart: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the cost of it, but the party was authorised to stay one night in London in order to spend sufficient time at the exhibition.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my hon. Friend inform his right hon. Friend and other Ministers in charge of Service Departments that this country is being carried
    928
    on at present by those engaged in industry, and that it is necessary that exhibitions should be reduced to the minimum?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, but I cannot see anything in this visit that suggests any profligacy. There seemed to be quite a good reason for it.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it the practice to send officers on courses of business efficiency, and, if so, how does the hon. Gentleman account for the present state of the Army?
    Mr. Stewart: Because this was not done sufficiently early.
    Earl Winterton: Is it not a fact that the present state of the Army as displayed in Malaya is a very high one, and why should an hon. Member of this House sneer at it?

  EXCAVATED MATERIAL, NEWQUAY
  Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he will issue instructions so that the person responsible for depositing excavated material consisting of slate and stone on the foreshore at Watergate Bay, Newquay, Cornwall, is to pay the cost of its removal.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): The County Council, as the local planning authority, are seeking to arrange for the removal of the excavated materials by the person responsible for depositing them on the foreshore.
  Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend say what steps he proposes to take to make sure that the materials are removed? Does he propose to employ someone who really is competent to see that they have been removed or is he going to be content to be fobbed off by someone who says that they have been removed, when they have not been?
  Mr. King: That is not a matter in the first instance for my right hon. Friend, but for the local authority. The local authority are in touch with the person responsible and are endeavouring to get him to remove the materials, which, I think, they will succeed in doing.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Leaflets
    Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of National Insurance if he will assemble the explanatory leaflets, etc., produced since 1946 by his Department and publish them in book form, at a price convenient to the general public as a comprehensive guide to national insurance legislation.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): As I informed my hon. Friend recently we are taking steps to adopt a uniform size for our leaflets. I will bear in mind the possibility of issuing them as bound volumes but there would be difficulties in keeping them up to date.
    Mr. Symonds: Until my right hon. Friend thinks it right to publish these leaflets in consolidated form, will he make available to hon. Members a consolidated list of the titles of these leaflets, so that we shall know those which deal with the particular point of difficulty.
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir, I will see about that.

    Sickness Benefit
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he has yet received the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee concerning provisional regulations dealing with rates of benefit payable to persons in hospital; and what steps he is taking in the matter.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. The Advisory Committee's Report and the Joint Authority's statement thereon were presented to Parliament on 29th July last and substantive regulations were made and laid before Parliament on the same date.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresbyasked the Minister of National Insurance if he will give the number of persons who have been refused sickness benefit on the ground that they have not applied within the prescribed period since the National Insurance Scheme came into operation.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Minister of National Insurance how many claims to sickness benefit were refused
    930
    by the independent statutory authorities during the six months ended 29th September upon the ground that notice of disability had not been given within the prescribed time; and if he is satisfied that adequate publicity has been given concerning the time limit.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I regret that this information is not available. Very wide publicity has been given to the time limits for claiming benefit, through the Family Guide, in the Press, in radio talks and leaflets. They have also been explained in booklets sent to trade unions, advice bureaux, hospitals and other organisations. I am now examining certain other possible methods of giving further publicity to this important matter.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give exact figures can he say whether the number is large or small, whether he is satisfied that people are fully aware of their personal responsibility to apply and whether he thinks the prescribed period is long enough in cases of serious illness or where there has been an operation?
    Mr. Griffiths: The number is not large and it is being reduced every week as the facts become known. I am anxious to do all I can in these cases and in connection with certain other benefits I have recently extended the time limit; but the period must not be too elastic, otherwise it will not be possible to check up claims.
    Mr. Turton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is difficult for a person to put in a claim within the prescribed time when he is seriously ill? People have been refused benefit on this ground in a number of cases.
    Mr. Griffiths: The claim is made on a certificate received from the doctor. I cannot imagine a serious illness being in progress for many days without a doctor knowing about it. If there is good cause for delay that can be accepted by the insurance officer.
    Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the responsibility lies not on the doctor but on the sick person and that in cases where there has been an oversight, and a claim has not been put in, people have been refused benefit?
    Mr. Griffiths: I would like particulars of such cases.
    Mr. Daines: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this practice worked well among the wage-earning classes for many years, and that it is too bad if the professional classes cannot carry out the same rules?

    Old Age Pensioners
    Mr. Stanley Prescottasked the Minister of National Insurance what is the total number of old age pensioners, between January, 1948, and the most recent convenient date, who have had their pensions reduced by virtue of their earnings exceeding 20s. per week; and by what sum was the total of old age pensions thereby reduced.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I regret that the information asked for is not available.
    Mr. Prescott: Would it be possible to achieve this without undue cost?
    Mr. Griffiths: In the early stages of the administration of the Act we kept these figures in detail, and I gave information at that time to the hon. Member in reply to a Question. We thought that there was no longer any purpose in detaching staff for this work. We think that on an average 5,000 are affected each week, but we have not now the same detailed information that we had at the beginning of the scheme.
    Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of National Insurance when last he received a deputation from the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners; what representations were made to him for alleviating the increasing distress experienced by the aged; and what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this respect.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I received a deputation from this Federation on 30th March, 1949. They urged, among other things, that there should be increases in the basic weekly rates of retirement pension under the National Insurance Act to 30s. for single persons and 50s. for married couples. As regards the last part of the Question, I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a letter which I sent to the President of the Federation in reply to their representations.
    Mr. Prescott: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any possibility of implementing the Socialist
    932
    promise of 1945 for an old age pension of 30s. a week without a means test?
    Mr. Griffiths: Our promise has been implemented.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when it was implemented to 30s. a week?
    Mr. Griffiths: The promise was the implementation of the Beveridge report, and that we have done in full measure.
    Mr. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote that reply in HANSARD so that we can all see it?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is very long, but if any hon. Member wants a copy and will let me know, I will send a copy to him.
    Mr. Prescott: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, may I give notice that I propose to raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

    Workmen's Compensation
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware that workmen who sustained accidents prior to the Industrial Injuries Act, are still paid compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and if he will take steps to discuss with the insurance companies concerned the transfer of these men to the new scheme in order to bring about uniformity of payments to injured workmen.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I have had discussions with both sides of industry on this matter, but regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Industrial Injuries Act has had the effect of dividing injured workmen into two classes? Will he consult with employers and the insurance society, with a view to bringing about uniformity?
    Mr. Griffiths: I have for some time been having discussions with employers and trade unions, and they are continuing. I would remind my hon. Friend that men injured and receiving payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act are entitled to benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act and the National Insurance Act, and that large numbers are receiving benefits.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many old cases of workmen's compensation where the benefits payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act are, for one reason or another, very much higher than those which are paid under the Industrial injuries Act? Can he assure the House that no man who is entitled to these benefits will have his benefits reduced without his own consent?
    Mr. Griffiths: That is one of the things we shall have to consider.
    Mr. Tom Brown: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what is the obstacle to making progress in this direction? He promised the House 12 months ago that he would consider the question of the pre-1924 cases being brought into the new scheme.
    Mr. Griffiths: In a pre-1924 case, if a man is totally disabled he receives an unemployability supplement under the Industrial Injuries Act. Discussions are continuing, but this is a difficult matter which must be settled satisfactorily to both sides.
    Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend expect the global sum he mentioned earlier to be agreed upon within the next two or three months?
    Mr. Griffiths: I cannot promise that. As I have said, discussions are still going on; no one is holding them up. We are all doing our best to find a solution, and I will let the House know as soon as the discussions have concluded.

    Public Assistance, Bristol
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of National Insurance what was the average number of people drawing public assistance in the City of Bristol for the years 1919 to 1923 and 1945 to 1949.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I am having prepared such information as is available, and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would the right hon. Gentleman add to that information the cost of obtaining these figures, so that the Lord President of the Council can know against whose Election expenses he would like to charge them?
    Mr. Griffiths: The cost will not be very considerable, but the effect will be.
    Mr. Awbery: Can my right hon. Friend say what the figures are for the whole country?
    Mr. Griffiths: Not without notice.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Factory Inspectorate
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Minister of Labour to what extent the factory inspectorate is at present up to strength.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): There are at present 40 vacancies in the factory inspectorate, and a competition is now in progress with a view to filling these vacancies. The normal annual requirements of new recruits are from 15 to 20.
    Mr. MacPherson: Can my right hon. Friend say how long these vacancies have existed, and for how long the inspectorate has been short of staff?
    Mr. Isaacs: We ended the war with a shortage of 80, as recruiting stopped during the war. We have now reduced the shortage to this figure, and we hope to fill up the gaps soon.
    Mr. Piratin: How many have been recruited during the past year?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot say without notice.

    European Volunteer Workers, Full Sutton Camp
    Mr. Odeyasked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of European Volunteer Workers who are stationed at Full Sutton Camp; how many were offered agricultural employment during the three months August, September and October,; in how many cases such employment was refused; and what was the total amount of unemployment benefit paid to the occupants of this camp during the same period.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): The Full Sutton Camp is a holding camp for misfit, sick, disabled, unemployed and other European volunteer workers who have failed to make the grade. There

    935
    are 776 workers in the camp. During August, September and October, 244 refused agricultural work for various reasons. In 175 cases these reasons were unacceptable and Unemployment Insurance Benefit was disallowed. £2,696 11s. 8d. was paid in Unemployment Insurance Benefit during the three months. I am looking into the whole position of this camp.
    Mr. Odey: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether, in view of that unsatisfactory record and the widespread damage being done to adjacent farms by European Volunteer Workers in their leisure hours, he will consider closing the camp?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not think that a wrong impression ought to be created. This is a holding camp for misfits and for persons who are difficult to place. It contains 776 out of the 180,000 foreign workers who have been recruited for British industry. I agree that this number represents difficult cases, and that the matter is causing apprehension in the minds of people in the locality. We are dealing with it, but I hope that no smear will be cast upon the vast body of foreign workers who are doing an excellent job.
    Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend say, without notice, how many of these workers who have either refused agricultural work or who are considered unsuitable, are capable of doing other work?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I think that those who have refused agricultural work are suitable for other work if vacancies are available.

    Printing Industry
    Mr. Dainesasked the Minister of Labour what evidence has been submitted to him of restrictive practices in the printing industry; and what action is being taken by his Department.
    Mr. Isaacs: No such practices have been brought to my notice. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Daines: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in its issue of 23rd September the "Daily Mirror" drew attention to a pamphlet circulated by the political com-
    936
    mittee of the Constitutional Club members, M.P.s and prospective Conservative candidates, which alleges—and here I quote—that
    "For many years the N.A.T.S.O.P.A. union has restricted the rate of printing to a basic figure unless extra men are employed."
    May I take it that there is no basis in fact for this serious allegation?
    Mr. Isaacs: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance, from my personal knowledge, that that story is absolutely untrue. It is, in fact, just a Tory story.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: Are we to assume from the Minister's having consented to answer the last question that he takes responsibility for the "Daily Mirror"?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, but I should have thought that when an organisation published and took responsibility for an unjust allegation against honest and decent working men, they would have been decent enough to apologise.

  SCOTLAND

    Hearing Aids
    Mr. M. MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has now been made in the supply of Medresco hearing aids to those in need of them.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): The rate of issue is now about 360 aids per month. Over 3,500 in all have already been supplied.
    Mr. MacPherson: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of how long the waiting list is at the present time?
    Mr. Woodburn: It is a rather considerable waiting list even now, but we are doing our best to catch up.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: Can my right hon. Friend give any estimate of how many of these aids are actually being used by the recipients?

    Marginal Land
    33 Mr. M. MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish National Farmers' Union in connection with the problem of securing increased production from marginal land

    937
    and marginal farms; and what reply he has given.
    Mr. Woodburn: A memorandum, dated 8th November, by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland on the marginal land problem has been received and is being examined. The problem is a difficult one, and my hon. Friend will not expect me now to say more than that the recommendations made by the Union will receive careful consideration in connection with the general review of the position which is being undertaken by the Departments concerned.
    Mr. Snadden: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this matter will be treated as a matter of urgency in view of the fact that 10 per cent. of all farms in Scotland fall into the category to which these recommendations refer?
    Mr. Woodburn: It is a very important question and it will be given serious consideration.

    Economy Measures
    Sir William Darlingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he contemplates taking to inform the Scottish people of the exact extent to which the dollar crisis affects Scotland.
    Mr. Woodburn: In the past two months the Scottish Information Office has arranged over 250 meetings at which the effect of the exchange adjustments and the Government's economy measures have been explained to audiences of different kinds in all parts of Scotland. The Economic Information Unit also has published leaflets explaining the effects of devaluation in simple terms which have been distributed in all parts of the United Kingdom.
    Sir W. Darling: In addition to that publicity, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving to the people of Scotland some idea of the contribution which they as a people are making to reducing the dollar gap? Could he give information as to the production of whisky, textiles and also to what extent these productions compare with other units in the United Kingdom?
    Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman send some of these leaflets, expressed in simple language, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Commander Galbraith: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any further information as to the effect of devaluation on the housing programme in Scotland, and what instructions, if any, he has issued to housing authorities?
    Mr. Woodburn: As I have said several times, I am not expecting that devaluation will have any effect on Scotland's housing problem.

    Allotments, Edinburgh
    Mr. Gilzeanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will take steps to prevent the St. Leonards, Edinburgh, Allotments Association being evicted by the Corporation of Edinburgh by exercising his powers under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948.
    Mr. Woodburn: There is no provision in the statutes to enable me to initiate action in a case of this kind.

  PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES
  Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Pensions to what extent the 1914–18 war pensioner is participating in the improvements in pensions and allowances which have been put into operation since 1945.
  The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): The Twenty-fourth Report of the Ministry, recently laid before the House, indicates numerous ways in which pensioners of the 1914–18 war have benefited by those improvements. For example, some 300,000 allowances for wives and children of 1914 war pensioners have been added to the pension roll as a result of the improved conditions for payment of such allowances. Of the total of 39,000 supplementary allowances in payment on 30th September, 1949, some 16,400 represent payments to 1914 pensioners.
  The Twenty-fourth Report includes tables which analyse the payments now being made to a typical group of 25 very severely disabled pensioners of the 1914 war, and show the improved position of such pensioners. The Report also describes how the special needs of the 1914 war pensioner are being met by means of the Ministry's Welfare Service.

  939
  About 250 motor cars have so far been provided to seriously disabled 1914 pensioners.
  The present annual expenditure on pensions and allowances in respect of 1914 war pensioners, including widows and dependants, is approximately £1½ million higher than in the year ending 31st March, 1946.
  Mr. Symonds: Will my right hon. Friend take what steps are open to him to bring these very welcome facts to the notice of ex-Service men's organisations, and those interested in the welfare of "World War I" pensioners?
  Mr. Marquand: I have been asked by my advisory committee to draw the special attention of local war pensions committees to these and other facts and to the report generally, and I am taking steps today to do so. As the ex-Service men's organisations are represented on the advisory committee and on the local war pensions committees, I think they will have every opportunity of getting to know about it.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these cars, which have been appropriated for ex-Service men and disabled persons, have been allotted to the Haig Homes in Birmingham?
  Mr. Marquand: I would require notice of that question.

  NATIONAL FINANCE Gold (Price)
  Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why no instructions were given to the British representative at the recent meeting of the International Monetary Fund in America to support the Union of South Africa in their demand for a revision in the dollar price of gold.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I have already explained to my hon. Friend that the resolution tabled by the Union of South Africa related to the sale of gold at premium prices and not to the dollar price of gold. I instructed my representative to support a recommendation that this question should be referred to the
  940
  Executive Directors for further study, and this is being undertaken.
  Mr. Stokes: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a very good reason for giving instructions to his representative would have been that, as the dollar is related to the price of gold, it was very important that gold should be allowed to reach its real price instead of a fictitious price, as at present?
  Sir S. Cripps: I do not think that would have been a good reason. The reason why I acted as I did was to get this matter explored.
  Mr. Stokes: I know, but I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he does not concede that we are now living in a complete state of cuckoodom—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It would be much worse if hon. Gentlemen opposite were in control. What I want to know is whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees that the first way to ensure money having a real value is to realise that it cannot have it if it is hitched to a fictitious gold value? Why does he not give the right instructions on this gold question to his representative?
  Sir S. Cripps: I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would put that question on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Speaker: Sir Waldron Smithers.
  Mr. Stokes: May I put one final question?
  Mr. Speaker: We cannot pursue this matter further.
  Mr. Stokes: I beg to give notice that I shall continue to try to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  RUSSIAN DEBT
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount in devalued pounds of the debt of the Russian Government to Britain?
  Sir S. Cripps: There is nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 20th January, except that the figure of £38 million for debts due in respect of the 1939–45 war now stands at £36 million as a result of repayments made. The devaluation of the pound does not affect the figures, as the indebtedness is expressed in sterling.
  Sir W. Smithers: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what steps he has taken to recover this debt—
  Mr. Shurmer: Send the hon. Gentleman there.
  Sir W. Smithers:—and will the debt be taken into consideration when entering into trade negotiations? Also will the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that it is dangerous to do business with anyone who does not know the meaning of the word "honesty"?

  RUSSIAN DEBT

    Savings (Investment)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was invested in July, 1945, in the Post Office Savings Bank, in Building Society deposits and in Trustee Savings Banks and National Savings certificates, respectively; and approximately how many separate accounts were in each item.
    Sir S. Cripps: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Osborne: Is there any hope of these savers regaining the '4s. in the £ by which their savings have gone down in purchasing power since the Socialists came into power?
    Sir S. Cripps: These savings were all in terms of sterling and will, of course, be repaid in sterling.
    Following is the reply:

    TOTAL INVESTMENT, JULY, 1945

    —

    Amount £m.

    Number of Accounts*

    Post Office Savings Bank

    1,642

    19,880,000

    Building Society Deposits (excluding share capital)

    152

    750,000

    Trustee Savings Banks

    579

    4,150,000

    National Savings Certificates

    1,816

    17,500,000

    * Number of live accounts except for Building Societies where the number of depositors is shown.

    All the figures are approximate.

    Entertainments Duty (Stage Plays)
    Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to whom the profits of the play "A Streetcar Named Desire," which is exempt from Entertainments Duty, are assigned.
    Sir S. Cripps: Any surplus from this exempt production will accrue to the promoters, a non-profit-making body, to be used for the purposes laid down in their Memorandum of Association and approved by the Customs.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the effect of this taxation to enable this theatre to charge a lower price for tickets than is charged by competitor theatres, or to divert from the Chancellor large sums of money which would be very useful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Is he satisfied that this is the type of play which should benefit by this privilege?
    Sir S. Cripps: Parliament decided two or three years ago that this was the best way in which to administer the taxation in view of the encouragement it desired to give to non-profit-making shows, which would, generally speaking, encourage the arts.
    Mr. Benn Levy: As the theatre in England is perennially hampered by want of capital, is it not highly desirable that it should be helped to capitalise itself in this way on the sole and sensible condition that it refrains from dissipating its resources in the form of distributed profits?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is obviously the view that this House took when it passed this legislation.
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Is it not a fact that members of the advisory drama panel of the Arts Council stand to benefit from some of these plays which are tax exempted in this way, and is it, therefore, a sound procedure that we are now following?
    Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Paper.
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the procedure by which judgment is passed on the suitability and artistic merits of plays granted exemption from Entertainments Duty; and why a non-profit making amateur dramatic society in Middlesbrough is being asked to pay Entertainments Duty on its performances.
    Sir S. Cripps: It is not necessary to pass judgment on the suitability or artistic merits of any particular play

    943
    which is granted exemption from Entertainments Duty. As I have previously explained, the condition laid down in Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1946, is that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise should be satisfied that the play is provided by a body which is not conducted or established for profit and whose aims, objects and activities are partly educational. I understand that the society referred to in the last part of the Question was granted exemption on 4th November.
    Mr. Cooper: While appreciating my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, may I ask whether he does not realise that this particular society has complied with these conditions all along, being a non-profit-making society? Does he not therefore consider it rather unwarranted to threaten such a society with entertainment tax on its performances?
    Sir S. Cripps: I understood that it had to be ascertained whether the objects and activities were partly educational.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the decision in the case of a non-profit-making body subject to any review, and if so by whom?
    Sir S. Cripps: The Customs authorities supervise, to see that it is properly in accordance with the Act.
    Mr. Levy: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that if only the very foolish phrase "partly educational" could be dropped from the statutes, he would not find himself bombarded by these rather misguided questions and he would not put himself or the Government into the position of seeming to put themselves or their nominees forward as arbiters of the arts?
    Captain Crookshank: Is it not clear now as a result of what has happened in the case of the play "A Streetcar Named Desire" that Parliament's intentions in 1946 are not working out quite as then intended? Would the Chancellor have the matter reviewed?
    Sir S. Cripps: I think those intentions are working out exactly as intended, but I am sure that Parliament never intended to constitute itself or me censors of plays.
    Mr. Levy: Or anybody else.

    Sterling Transactions
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure that transferable or convertible sterling is not disposed of at rates less than the official parity of sterling with the dollar.
    Mr. William Wellsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of dealings in sterling below the official rate of exchange; and how far the maintenance of the official rate is being endangered thereby.
    Sir S. Cripps: The devaluation of sterling has taken much of the profit out of cheap sterling transactions. Although precise estimates cannot be given, I have no reason to believe that such transactions are now being effected on a significant scale. Nevertheless, as long as sterling is not fully convertible, transactions of this nature cannot be entirely eliminated, and a close watch is being kept on the position. The precautionary measures which were taken before devaluation are being continued, and they will, if necessary, be further strengthened.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the Chancellor aware that this type of sterling is now being dealt with in New York at some 30 cents discount, and does he consider that this fact does not require immediate action? If he does, may I ask him what kind of action His Majesty's Government are taking?
    Sir S. Cripps: I do not agree with the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and if it were so, I should not disclose to the people who are so speculating the steps which we propose to take.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I quite agree, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that he is taking steps?
    Sir S. Cripps: I have given the assurance in the answer to the Question.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is not the Chancellor aware that the use or abuse of this sterling by non-sterling bloc nationals is again beginning to divert commodities from the sterling group to the dollar countries and is leading to a considerable loss of dollars.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware that this is happening on any significant scale.

    Sterling Area (Dollar Holdings)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure that in allocating dollars and other hard currencies from the sterling area pool to countries within and without the sterling area, account is taken of the retention by the recipient country of any hard currencies earned by that country.
    Sir S. Cripps: Members of the sterling area keep the Bank of England informed of their dollar holdings. It is the established practice that they only draw from the central reserves such dollars and other hard currencies as they need, after taking into account sums retained to meet their current working requirements. In cases where His Majesty's Government agrees to permit countries outside the sterling area to buy dollars from the Bank of England, the amount is always specified in the agreement.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask the Chancellor whether, particularly when we take account of what has been released to India, he has taken into consideration the fact that all Indian manganese is now sold direct for American dollars?
    Sir S. Cripps: I have no information as to the latter fact. All earnings by the Indians for dollars are taken into full account.

    Gifts and Loans
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out in tabular form the amount of gifts and loans received by this country since the end of the war, showing the countries from which they have come; the total sales of overseas investments in dollars and in gold; and also the amounts of loans or gifts made by this country so as to show the net gain or loss on these transactions.
    Sir S. Cripps: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the gifts and loans to His Majesty's Government, and also the postwar relief and similar assistance made available by the United Kingdom to other countries. There is no question of making a gain or loss on these transactions, and
    946
    the lists are in no sense a balance of payments. Thus they exclude new capital investment overseas and the drawing down by other countries of their short-term sterling assets.
    Mr. Osborne: Am I right in saying that we have received more in gifts and loans than we have given during the past four and a half years, and, if so, may I ask what is going to happen to our * standard of living when gifts and loans cease?
    Sir S. Cripps: The answer to the first part of the question, if the omitted matters which I have mentioned were taken into account, would be "No."
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that it is slightly misleading to say that these gifts were made to His Majesty's Government when, in point of fact, they were made to the nation as a whole?
    Sir S. Cripps: They were made to the nation as a whole. I was answering the question which was put to me.
    Following is the table:

    A. Post-war relief and similar aid by U.K. (up to end September, 1949)

    (1) Gifts

    £ million

    U.N.R.R.A.

    155

    I.R.O.

    11.2

    Civil Affairs (not recoverable)

    49

    Greece, Armed Forces initial equipment, maintenance, etc.

    31

    Greece, Surplus stores and relief supplies

    2

    Poland, Welfare and Social Services, June, 1946-March, 1947

    5

    Poland, Surplus stores

    6

    Austria:

    Before 1st April, 1946

    10

    Post U.N.R.R.A.

    7.5

    Surplus machine tools

    0.125

    Hungary: Surplus machine tools

    0.2

    Italy: estimated value of surplus stores in excess of payments under financial agreement

    55

    Netherlands: Military equipment and surpluses, estimated portion in excess of payment under Debt settlement

    16

    Roumania: Medical supplies and surplus army foodstuffs

    0.02

    U.N. fund for Araby refugees in Palestine

    1

    Ex-Italian Colonies: Cost of administration

    12

    Burma:

    Cancellation of debt

    15

    B.M.A. expenditure (cancelled claim)

    23

    Total (say)

    400

    (ii) Loans and recoverable aid

    £ million

    Civil Affairs (recoverable)

    50

    France:

    Financial Agreement

    100

    Private credit

    15

    Denmark: Financial Agreement

    35

    Germany: Cost of supplying German civil economy

    207

    Netherlands: Military equipment and surpluses—estimated relative portion of total payment agreed under Debt Settlement

    25

    Greece: Stabilisation Loan

    10

    Burma:

    Loan and credits since 1945 (less amounts forgiven)

    27

    Stores supplied against later repayment

    9

    Miscellaneous (say)

    15

    Total

    493

    (iii) Drawing rights exercised on U.K. during June, l948- Seplember, 1949

    Drawn by:

    £ million

    Austria

    6.3

    France

    46.4

    Greece

    8.3

    Bizone

    0.9

    Turkey

    2.9

    64.8

    B. Aid to U.K. up to end September, 1949

    (i) Monetary Gifts

    £ million

    Australia

    28

    New Zealand

    10

    38

    In addition, a further £8 million has been received from Australia this month.
    (ii) Loans (excluding drawings on International Monetary Fund)

    U.S.A. line of Credit under 1945

    £ million

    Financial agreement

    931

    Canada Credit under 1946 Financial Agreement (amount drawn)

    268

    1,199

    NOTE.—This excludes the £154 million Loan under Lease-Lend terminal settement of 1945.
    (iii) Assistance to the U.K. by the U.S.A. under the European Recovery Programme

    £ million

    Total receipts

    393

    (iv) Drawing rights exercised by U.K. during June, 1948-September, 1949

    £ million

    Drawn on: Belgium

    16.5

    C. Net sales and redemptions of U.S. and Canadian securities, £53 million

    U.S. Capital (Investment in U.K.)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much United States capital has been invested in British industry during the current year.
    Sir S. Cripps: I regret that this information is not available.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer say what the trend has been in such investments since devaluation?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I cannot, because those figures are not collected separately.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it at all surprising that Americans are not investing? If I were an American I would not have a single dollar in this country, with this Government in power, because it would be a bad risk.

    Government Departments (Staffs)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take immediate steps drastically to reduce the staffs of Government Departments so as to free more labour for trade and industry which is finding it increasingly difficult to recruit adequate staff.
    Sir S. Cripps: As I informed the House on 26th October, the numbers of staff required in Departments in relation to the work they have to perform is under continuous review. In this way, the non-industrial civil staffs in Departments other than the Post Office and Defence group, have been reduced from 355,515 on 1st July, 1948, to 336,170 on 1st October, 1949. This process will be supplemented by economies arising from the particular reductions of services which I then described or which may later be found practicable.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the Chancellor aware that there are many semi-Government Departments which are terribly overstaffed? For example, the War Agricultural Committee Department has 10 times more people than it had during the war to do the same amount of work. Will the Government really look into this to see whether they can get more workers for productive industry?
    Sir S. Cripps: I cannot accept what the hon. Member says because the matter is under continual review.
    Mr. Stokes: Has the Chancellor really caused to be examined the amount of mechanisation that has gone on in clerical staffing? Is he aware that staffs can be very greatly reduced by the proper use of modern instruments?
    Sir S. Cripps: Considerable mechanisation has taken place in Government administrative staffing.

    Command Paper (Correction)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate of the cost of correcting the erroneous figures contained in Command Paper No. 7697, presented in May, concerning Government Information Services, deterred him from withdrawing the document and presenting the correct version when the errors came to his notice in May or in June.
    Sir S. Cripps: The cost would have been about five guineas; but if the hon. Member will look at the reply I gave him on 22nd November he will see that cost was not the sole factor.
    Sir J. Mellor: In view of the vast sums spent by the Government upon information services would it not have been worth while to spend another £5 5s. upon ensuring the accuracy of this document?
    Sir S. Cripps: The answer is "No." I should have thought it a complete waste.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is not the Chancellor aware that on the Public Accounts Committee two members recommended the withdrawal of this document and that no members dissented from this proposition?
    Sir S. Cripps: I have seen what transpired.
    Sir J. Mellor: Has not the Chancellor taken any notice of it?

    Vactric Company, Limited
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what loans, other than the Government loan, now outstanding with the Vactric Company Limited, are now guaranteed directly, or indirectly, by the Government.
    Sir S. Cripps: None, Sir.
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the prospects of an early repayment of the Government loan of £340,000 to the Vactric Company Limited; and from what sources is it expected that the company will find the money.
    Sir S. Cripps: It is for the directors of the company in the first instance to propose the timing and method of repayment of the Government loan which they regard as possible; and I cannot anticipate any proposal on this subject which they may make in due course.
    Mr. Erroll: Are we to assume that the Chancellor is quite prepared to wait several years before this third of a million pounds is returned to the Treasury?
    Sir S. Cripps: We are prepared to wait until such time as it is possible to have it repaid without doing a lot of damage.

    Sterling Balances
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the necessity to restrict drawings upon sterling balances, what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government to secure agreement from the countries holding such balances to refrain from drawing upon them, or to accept counterclaims by His Majesty's Government for services rendered during the war.
    Sir S. Cripps: I gave a list of the countries with which we have agreements governing the blocking of and release of sterling balances in the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) on 11th November. As regards the second part of the Question, a number of claims for war stores, fixed military assets and so forth have already been accepted and settled while some are still outstanding and will, we hope, be settled before long.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is it not a fact that the second part of the Chancellor's answer has nothing to do with what I put down, which was to ask the Chancellor what action had been taken to secure agreement from the countries holding sterling balances to refrain from drawing upon them or to accept counter claims by His Majesty's Government for services rendered during the war? To which countries have counter-claims been submitted? Can the Chancellor, in view

    951
    of what he has said about the need to make these counter claims, come now to the House and say that no such counter claim has been made?
    Sir S. Cripps: The matters I mentioned are all counter claims.
    Colonel Crosthwaite - Eyre: With respect, I would ask the Chancellor if it is not a fact that all he has done is to scale down these balances by selling assets abroad? When is he going to enter a counter claim in respect of services rendered by us during the war to the countries concerned?
    Sir S. Cripps: We have no intention of entering such a counter claim. It is a matter to be taken into consideration.

    Armed Forces (Housing)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present rate of depreciation on houses erected as married quarters for His Majesty's forces; and how it compares with the rate of depreciation to be charged under the new financial arrangements.
    Sir S. Cripps: The capital cost of the houses erected by the Service Departments out of borrowed money under the Bill now before Parliament will be repaid over a period of 60 years. The cost of houses built by the Departments in the past and of houses built in the future outside the new arrangements has been or will be met from Votes of Parliament, and no question of repayment therefore arises.

HOME INFORMATION SERVICES (COST)
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
Copies of the Report of the Committee on the Cost of Home Information Services under the chairmanship of Sir Henry French are now available in the Vote Office. I will not attempt to summarise the Report in detail, but it may help the House to have a general outline of the Committee's findings.
The Report endorses the post-war reorganisation of the home information services, including the establishment of
952
the Central Office of Information as a common service agency and the continuance of information divisions and their Press sections in the departments, and suggests only minor changes in the existing arrangements. It reviews the procedure for initiating publicity projects, recommends tightened control of departmental proposals involving Central Office of Information expenditure and suggests an annual review by Ministers of the broad trends of publicity expenditure.
It gives guidance on the principles which should be followed by departmental Press officers. It describes the considerations which should govern the choice and use of the various media and suggests certain changes of emphasis in the light of experience and altered circumstances, notably reductions in the use of Press and poster advertising, films and large exhibitions. As regards costs, a number of suggestions for economy are made, and the Committee recommend that Departments should take steps to see that expenditure on home information services during 1949–50 is kept as far as possible below the Estimate figure.
The Government are indebted to Sir Henry French and the Committee for a valuable Report which will be most helpful to all who are concerned with the official information services. It covers a wide field, including a number of technical matters, like the best use of Press and poster advertising and films and the most effective methods of conducting campaigns with broad general objectives on which there are legitimate differences of opinion among experts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—experts.
But while we cannot be committed on every detail, and there are some points on which we would disagree with the Committee's emphasis, we accept the Report as a whole, and action has been taken on the lines recommended. In a number of important instances, indeed, the Report came as useful confirmation of measures of economy which had been put into effect or were under consideration when it was received.
Reductions in expenditure on lines consistent with the Committee's recommendations will contribute to the saving of nearly £700,000 which is likely to be made this financial year on the estimated home information expenditure, and I am

953
glad to be able to tell the House that expenditure on home information next year is expected to be nearly £1,200,000 below the 1949–50 original Estimate total of slightly over £5 million. Savings of this order have necessitated the elimination or curtailment of projects which, in more favourable circumstances, would have been fully justified, and I wish to make it clear that, like the Committee, we regard the maintenance of adequate information services as an indispensable aid to administration in modern conditions as well as a democratic necessity. I should also like to take the opportunity of paying tribute once again to the zeal and efficiency with which Government information staffs have carried out their important duties and have co-operated in effecting substantial economies.
Mr. Eden: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for this synopsis. We shall take an early opportunity of reading the Report.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will the Lord President of the Council either confirm or deny the rumour in circulation that it is proposed to close the Crown Film Unit studio at Beaconsfield?
Mr. Morrison: I do not think there is any question of closing the Crown Film Unit. It will, of course, be subject to the consideration of certain economies, but I do not think it goes as far as that.
Mr. Osborne: Is the Lord President of the Council satisfied that the Central Office of Information has wisely spent this money in view of the Government's own confession in Command 7572, paragraph 30, that it has been unable to make the people of this country realise that we are in the midst of a real and desperate economic crisis?
Mr. Morrison: I cannot remember the particular White Paper, though I take the assurance of the hon. Gentleman that it exists. What I am perfectly sure about is that if there had been no information service which was capable of giving to the British people the facts of our economic circumstances, the condition of our country would be infinitely worse and more difficult today that it is.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement.
I desire to explain to the House the circumstances in which I was in a recent case fined for my share as a company director in permitting a company to fail to make annual returns to the Board of Trade. Until the moment that this case started I was in complete ignorance that I was still in any way associated with the company in question. The company was formed early in 1946 as a non-profit-making company to stage some plays of a semi-political nature at a London theatre. At the end of the first and only season during which this company operated I announced my resignation to my fellow directors, and it was accepted by them.
I thought, mistakenly, as it turned out, that I had thereby severed my connection with the company. This was on 30th April, 1946, over a year before I was appointed to my present office, on receiving which I had no notion that I was still technically a company director and thus committing an unwitting breach of the well-known rule that a Minister must not hold a directorship. From this time the company ceased to conduct any operations or to have any overt or effective existence. I understood, and was so informed after my resignation, that steps were being taken to dissolve it. Therefore, when this case started it came as a great surprise to me to learn that the company still existed and as a complete surprise to find that in the eyes of the law my association with it still continued.
I should perhaps add the following facts. First, after its effective existence of only a few months the company discharged all its obligations. Had returns been made, they would have been nil returns. Secondly, it was always intended that no director should receive any remuneration or payment of expenses. At no time, either before or after my presumed resignation, did I receive any money at all from my association with the company.
Sir, I apologise for the length of this statement. I felt it my duty to the House to lay the facts before it.

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. H. Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 94.

Division No. 292.

AYES

[3.40 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Forman, J. C.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Alpass, J. H.

Gallacher, W.

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Mellish, R. J.

Altewell, H. C.

Gibbins, J.

Messer, F.

Austin, H. Lewis

Gibson, C. W.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Awbery, S. S.

Gilzean, A.

Mikardo, Ian

Ayles, W. H.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Mitchison, G. R.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Goodrich, H. E.

Monslow, W.

Balfour, A.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Morley, R.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

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

Barton, C.

Grenfell, D. R.

Moyle, A.

Battley, J. R.

Grey, C. F.

Murray, J. D.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Naylor, T. E.

Benson, G.

Gunter, R. J.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Beswick, F.

Guy, W. H.

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

Bing, G. H. C.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Binns, J.

Hale, Leslie

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

Boardman, H.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

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

Bottomley, A. G.

Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

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

Hardy, E. A.

Oldfield, W. H.

Braddock, T. (Milcham)

Harrison, J.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Bramall, E. A.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Haworth, J.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Henderson, Rt Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

Pannell, T. C.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Pargiter, G. A.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Herbison, Miss M.

Parker, J.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Holman, P.

Parkin, B. T.

Burden, T. W.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Byers, Frank

Horabin, T. L.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Carmichael, James

Houghton, Douglas

Pearson, A.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Hoy, J.

Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

Champion, A. J.

Hubbard, T.

Popplewell, E.

Chafer, D.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Cluse, W. S.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Randall. H. E.

Cocks, F. S.

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

Ranger, J.

Collindridge, F.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Reeves, J.

Cooper, G.

Janner, B.

Raid, T. (Swindon)

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

Jay, D. P. T.

Rhodes, H.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Jenkins, R. H.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Crawley, A.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir. S.

Keenan, W.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Kenyon, C.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N)

Cullen, Mrs.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Daggar, G.

King, E. M.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Daines, P.

Kinley, J.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Dalton. Rt. Hon. H.

Kirby, B. V.

Royle, C.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Lavers, S.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Segal, Dr. S.

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

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Sharp, Granville

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lee, Miss (Cannock)

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

Deer, G.

Leonard, W.

Shurmer, P.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lever, N. K. H.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Delargy, H. J.

Levy, B. W.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Dobbie, W.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Simmons, C. J.

Dodds, N. N.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Lipson, D. L.

Skinnard, F. W.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Dumpleton, C. W.

Logan, D. G.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Dye, S.

Longden, F.

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

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lyne, A. W.

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

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

McAdam, W.

Snow, J. W.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

McEntee, V. La 1.

Sorensen, R. W.

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

McGhee, H. G.

Sparks, J. A.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Mack, J. D.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Ewart, R.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Stokes, R. R.

Farthing, W. J.

McKinlay, A. S.

Stubbs, A. E.

Fernyhough, E.

McLeavy, F.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

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

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Swingler, S.

Follick, M.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Sylvester, G. O.

Foot, M. M.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Symonds, A. L.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

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

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

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Warbey W. N.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Willis, E.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Weitzman, D.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Thurtle, Ernest

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Woods, G. S.

Tiffany, S.

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

Wyatt, W.

Timmons, J.

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

Yates, V. F.

Tolley, L.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Viant, S. P.

Wilkes, L.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Walker, G. H.

Wilkins, W. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Harden, J. R. E.

Prescott, Stanley

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

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Baldwin, A. E.

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

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Barlow, Sir J.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Ropner, Col. L.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Birch, Nigel

Keeling, E. H.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Scott, Lord W.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Smithers, Sir W.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Langford-Holt, J.

Snadden, W. M.

Bullock, Capt. M.

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

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Butcher, H. W.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Channon, H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

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

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Stuart, fit. Hon. J. (Moray)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Studholme, H. G.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Sutcliffe, H.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Davidson, Viscountess

Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

Touche, G. C.

De la Bé re, R.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Turton, R. H.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Drayson, G. B.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Walker-Smith, D.

Drewe, C.

Marples, A. E.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Marshall, O. (Bodmin)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Medlicott, Brigadier F.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Erroll, F. J.

Mellor, Sir J.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

York, C.

Galbrailh, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Nield, B. (Chester)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gammans, L. D.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Major Conant and

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Odey, G. W.

Mr. Wingfield Digby.

Gomme Duncan, Col. A.

Osborne, C.

Grimston, R. V.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make, in connection with the Festival of Britain, 1951, provision for festival gardens in Battersea Park and further provision as respects river traffic, works and entertainments, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred under the said Act by any Minister of the Crown and any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under section eight of the Public Works (Festival of Britain) Act, 1949;

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of the receipts of any such Minister in respect of interest on, and the repayment of. loans made under the said Act;

  (c) the release by any such Minister of the whole or any part of claims in respect of such loans."

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Clause 1. —(THE FESTIVAL GARDENS.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  3.50 p.m.
  Commander Noble: Unfortunately I was not able to be present for the Second Reading of this Bill, and I should therefore like to make one or two remarks on how it affects my constituency of Chelsea. I will group these few remarks under the three heads of noise, traffic and inconvenience, and I shall not take up the time of the Committee for more than a moment or two.
  With regard to noise, I was glad to read what the Lord President said in his Second Reading speech, namely, that a great deal of trouble had been taken in considering this problem and that he did not think any material inconvenience would be caused. It is good to start off like that because the Committee will realise that, unless trouble is taken, a great deal of inconvenience may be caused to people living in that part of London.
  960
  We have not yet had precise details of the hours of opening of the Festival Gardens. There are two points on that. The first is on how long they stay open at night? All people do not go to bed at the same time, young children may be kept awake; there are also five hospitals quite near the neighbourhood of Battersea Park. My second question relates to Sunday openings, and in this connection all I need say is that there are some 10 churches in that part of London.
  Then, as regards traffic, there are two points of substance. The normal public transport becomes very congested in that area during the rush hours, and I am sure that the Minister of Transport would not want the residents of Chelsea, going to and from their normal daily tasks, to be held up for any length of time or to have to undertake long detours. The other point concerns congestion of vehicles in the streets. There are a number of narrow streets around the neighbourhood and I hope that the diversions of traffic to Battersea Park will be made early and at some distance from the actual site. Anyone who has been in the neighbourhood of Sloane Square when the Chelsea Flower Show is in progress will understand my meaning. That show, of course, lasts only a few days, but the Festival Gardens will continue for some months.
  My third point is inconvenience. I apologise for harping on this question once more, but it is a matter of great importance locally. A vast organisation is being put virtually on the doorstep of many people and I hope that every step will be taken to see that they are disturbed as little as possible. I refer particularly to that part of the park which is not being taken over. I hope that during the period in which the Festival Gardens are being set up, and when they are in progress and during their removal, the remaining part of the park will be left alone as much as possible.
  My last point concerns the possible deficiency of £100,000 which the gardens may involve. The Lord President has said that he hopes that that deficit will not be incurred. That is a very good way to start. Let us try to run the Festival Gardens with the idea that there will not be a deficit. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) asked, why not run the gardens for a matter of years instead of months so that the deficit might

  961
  perhaps be covered. As was said by the Lord President, that proposal was originally considered but was not approved locally; but I hope that if ever the question is again considered of running the gardens for a number of years rather than months, the local authorities of Battersea and Chelsea will be the first to be consulted and asked for their views.
  I should like to refer to another small point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon: namely, traffic on the river. I hope that this is a matter which the Minister will watch very carefully to ensure that the right types of boats are used and that there are strict regulations to prevent overloading. Everyone will agree that it would be tragic if the Exhibition were to be marred by, perhaps, a very serious accident on the river in which a great number of lives were involved.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): As the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) indicated, his comments would have been more appropriate on Second Reading, when most of the points which he has raised were, in fact, dealt with. As he was not then present, however, and as he has a very intimate and direct constituency interest in this problem, it is only right that I should repeat to him the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council that all the matters to which he has referred—and they are, we appreciate, material points—will be kept constantly in front of the Exhibition authorities. The Lord President indicated that we have not reached the stage when all the details of times of opening, and whether or not there is to be Sunday opening, have yet reached determination; but, obviously, the comments and views of hon. and right hon. Members will be taken into consideration. With regard to the traffic arrangements, I do not in any way pretend that within that particular area they are not very difficult. Originally, Battersea Park was considered with a view to being the site for the main Festival, but the traffic difficulties of the area are one of the reasons why this suggestion was dropped. On the question of river transport, the hon. and gallant Member will be aware that for the first time I, as Minister of Transport, am taking powers in the Bill to deal with this problem. Hitherto it has not been sub-
  962
  jected to any guidance or control from the Ministry. We appreciate that the Exhibition will encourage a very substantial increase in this traffic and it is very desirable that we should take the necessary precautionary measures. Generally speaking, I endorse what has been said by the Lord President, and I assure the hon. and gallant Member that we shall bear his comments in mind.
  Commander Noble: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Earl Winterton: I did not intend to speak in this discussion but, in a sense, these problems affect me in the same way as they affect my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), because I happen to be a resident of the neighbourhood bordering on his constituency. If it is in Order to do so, I should like to ask the Minister to take two very important points into consideration. We already have a great congestion of motor bus transport which, for some reason best known to the authorities, is sent to Westminster from the North of London for parking; and the area around Victoria Station, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, is one of the greatest traffic centres in the world.
  I very much hope that when the Festival schemes are being considered, the most careful consideration will be given to the question of the parking of motor buses from distant parts. It is my view that they should be removed a long way away. I must not give away any secrets, but I understand from a near relative of mine—that, I believe, is the Parliamentary term for one's wife—who is a member of the Westminster City Council that discussions are already proceeding between that body and the traffic authorities. If the Minister would give an assurance that the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend will be taken into consideration my neighbours and I will be very pleased.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I hope that nothing which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) has said will in any way detract from the merits of the Chelsea Flower Show. That show is by far the most distinguished, interesting and honourable thing that has ever happened, or ever will happen, in connection with Chelsea. The very fact that it takes place

  963
  in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend brings him immense distinction. It is an event which he certainly ought to attend.
  I am quite sure that my hon. and gallant Friend had no intention of running down the show because of the slight inconvenience which it causes to that neighbourhood, but I want to make it quite plain that the example of Chelsea in having its show on the opposite side of the river to the Festival gardens might well be a good thing. I hope that the Chelsea Flower Show, which will always be much more distinguished than the other show, will not be in any way harmed but will instead be encouraged.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3. —(REINSTATEMENT AND LAYING-OPEN OF GARDENS, ETC.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Williams: I should like to ask some questions on this Clause. The Clause says in the first paragraph:
  "the Company shall, as soon as may be after the appointed day, do such things as are necessary to reinstate to the satisfaction of the County Council the sites of the gardens."
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) referred to the other part of Battersea Park which is not being used for the Festival Gardens. In that other part will be a great crowd of people, possibly trampling down flower beds, damaging trees, breaking park benches and so on. Is anything laid down that that part of the park shall be reinstated, because that is a piece of ground in Battersea Park which may be damaged, although it is not included in the Festival Gardens?
  I think the Committee are entitled to know what is to happen in Battersea Park. Are we to have swingboats there, or illuminated gardens, or gin palaces—
  The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but Clause 3 merely deals with the reinstatement and laying-open of gardens. The hon. Member's
  964
  first question seemed to be in Order, but not his second.
  Mr. Williams: In that case, Major Milner, I will refer to the matter on a later Clause.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4. —(AUTHORISATION OF WORKS, ETC.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. G. Williams:I now wish to ask for fuller information about what the Festival Gardens are to contain. Up to date we have not been told what is to happen, but I think hon. Members on all sides of the Committee would be interested to know. I was asking whether there are to be illuminated gardens, gin palaces, switchbacks and so on. I hope the Minister will tell us what is to take place.
  I also wish to ask who is to be on the committee to run the show in Battersea Park—
  The Chairman: I am sorry, but I am afraid that that question does not arise on Clause 4.
  Mr. Williams: With respect, Major Milner, this Clause refers to the authorisation of works and the works will have to be carried out by someone. I am asking what is to be the composition of the committee to carry out the works. If I may ask that very briefly, I want to know whether it is to be the whole council, or a sub-committee called the Battersea Committee, or the fun fair committee, or the Festival Committee, or whatever it may be.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: I should like to carry the questions put by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) a little further. On Second Reading I was very much impressed about the character of the recreations in Battersea Park. We were a good deal reassured by the Lord President of the Council and we were told by the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), who, I believe, is a member of the committee, that a great deal of attention was to be given to the flowers, the general laying out of the gardens and the beautification of the park. So far as that is so I have no hesitation in supporting the project

  965
  wholeheartedly, although at one time I had hesitation. I should like to know, however, whether there are to be riotous recreations, such as switchbacks, Aunt Sallys, coconut shies and so on; and an assurance on that point would be gratefully received by many hon. Members.
  Mr. Keeling: The execution of works in the Festival Gardens to which the Clause refers, will undoubtedly involve a good deal of disturbance in the adjacent part of the park, because one cannot entirely transform the Festival Gardens without having a lot of planting and so on in the adjoining part of the park. May I ask the Minister for a reply to the questions which have been put on that point, as to whether the adjacent part of the park will also be put in order?
  Sir William Darling: Clause 4 seems a little alarming to me because of the innuendo in page 3, lines 45 and 46. It seems that in the minds of the promoters something will happen in Battersea Park which ordinarily would not happen, something which ordinarily would not be allowed, or permitted—some irregularity, some impropriety, some indecency, something which in the ordinary case would be forbidden by bylaws. The explanatory memorandum rather reinforces this view when it says:
  "Clause 4 authorises the execution of works and the carrying on of the Company's activities notwithstanding that they would otherwise be actionable on the ground of nuisance."
  This seems an unusual provision in a Bill and apparently indicates that power is to be given to lower the standard of propriety. Is the Festival to be a kind of Bacchanalian revelry, because that is the implication which these doubtless innocent words convey to me? I feel it my duty to satisfy my curiosity on the matter.
  Sir Stanley Reed: I wish to put to the Minister the tremendous importance of the protection of the gardens from destruction during the time the Exhibition is being held and their reinstatement. We all share the apprehension of the dreadful effects of an invasion of Scotsmen in Battersea Park. As one of the few hon. Members who really know Battersea Park and admire the skill in which it has been laid out and maintained, I ask if the Minister will
  966
  see that there shall be one or two senior park keepers in whom may be vested powers to fine on the spot those people who do wilful and careless destruction.
  Mr. Barnes: I think it would be quite a mistake to assume that the London County Council will withdraw from their responsibilities in regard to Battersea Park. I cannot say that the park keepers will have magisterial powers, but they will certainly be there for the purpose of seeing that the conduct of the users of the rest of the park is normal. In addition, I know that they intend to have park keepers present for the purpose of regulating traffic.
  In regard to the point about impropriety, I want to make it clear that Clause 4 does not refer to the standard of conduct of individuals visiting the amusement park. It refers rather to a legal device and its effect on the works carried on there, or some of the amusements which might take place, or to the process of carrying out work. The whole undertaking could be held up if anyone took action for the purpose of getting an injunction. It is clear that Parliament in organising this national festival, does not want the whole thing to be reduced to chaos by the action of some individual. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) dealt with this at some length in his contribution to the Debate on Second Reading. If hon. Members read the Clause they will see that every step is being taken to protect the legal rights of the individual as far as a claim to damages is concerned, if he is able to establish such a claim, and the only purpose of this provision, we are legally advised, is to prevent the whole thing being held up by some action for an injunction.
  The idea that the Festival Gardens Company will open a series of gin palaces and projects of that description in the amusement park is quite out of the question, especially when one considers who are the 15 persons who comprise that company, whose names were asked for by the hon. Member. The Chairman is Sir Henry French, and the other directors include Lord Aberconway. I have just heard references to the importance and the standards of the Chelsea Flower Show, and as everyone knows Lord Aberconway is the president of that. He. representing the Royal Horticultural

  967
  Society, is one of the directors of this company. Then there is Sir Charles Cochrane, the theatrical manager and producer and Lord Latham, Chairman of the London Transport Executive. There are three members representing the L.C.C., two representing the National Amusements Council and four representing the Festival office. I suggest that personnel of this description represent a substantial guarantee to Members of this House that the amusement park will be conducted on a sensible and reasonable basis.
  I should add that the total acreage which it is proposed to use for Festival purposes is about 37. Only approximately 7 acres of this will be devoted to what one might describe as amusement purposes; the other 30 acres will, so far as the information I have and the plans which I have seen indicate, be laid out as additional attractive gardens of a pleasant and enjoyable character, which will be features of the Exhibition. I cannot say whether there will be switchbacks or in detail what there will be in the amusement park, but I feel that if we are to have an amusement park it would be absurd to exclude any form of entertainment of that kind. While that may not appeal to the hon. Gentleman, we have to realise that an undertaking of this kind must cater for a variety of tastes. Provided that it is kept within reasonable bounds and does not become a nuisance to other people, I do not see that we can limit the powers of the Festival Company.
  Earl Winterton: There seems to me to be an important legal point involved here which I do not think was dealt with on Second Reading. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to indicate that in order to prevent a person from bringing an action on the ground of nuisance and so holding up the whole proceedings, the law of nuisance is so to speak to be excluded so far as the operations dealt with in this Clause are concerned. It is stated in the Clause that a claim can be pursued if a person "proves" certain things. I do not know what the word "proves" means. Perhaps some of my hon. and learned Friends on these benches may be able to answer the question as we have no Law Officer present. To whose satisfaction has loss, etc., to be proved—to the satisfac-
  968
  tion of the court, supposing he brings an action; or has it to be proved merely to the satisfaction of the company?
  Supposing a person felt himself aggrieved, and said, "I have not received compensation" and went to law, what assurance have we that the interpretation of the court of the words in the Measure will not be that they mean "proves" to the satisfaction of the company and that as the appellant or the person who has gone to court has not been able to prove it to the satisfaction of the company, he is not entitled to any damages. I should like to know what is the legal interpretation of "proves."
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I do not know whether I ought to admit an interest in this matter. Like many others, I speak as a great lover and constant user of Battersea Park and as an inhabitant of Chelsea. I love the park, but at the same time, this Bill having received a Second Reading, I do not want to oppose in toto a Clause of this kind. But I think that the Clause goes a good deal too far for a reason which I shall give to the right hon. Gentleman in the hope that the Government may consider the objection sympathetically and at a later stage put the matter right. I understand what is in the mind of the Government, namely, that they do not desire the remedy of an injunction to be available, since that might hold up the Exhibition altogether. That was the reason given a few minutes ago by the right hon. Gentleman.
  As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, there are two remedies in the ordinary way in the case of nuisance. By far the more effective remedy is the one which he wishes to avoid, namely an injunction, which might hold the project up altogether. I think that the Government have attempted to retain the remedy of damages. Although I hope that with the more skilled advice available to him the right hon. Gentleman will answer the question which has just been put to him by my noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), I am under the impression that the remedy in damages is left by the Clause.
  Where I think that the Government have gone too far is in having excluded

  969
  the remedy of injunction not merely while these works are being erected and for the duration of the Exhibition, but afterwards; they have guarded against anybody having the remedy of injunction should these works be continued under Clause 3 which the Committee has recently considered. I refer to it only to illustrate the effect that Clause 4 can have. I think that I am right in saying, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look into the matter, that under the Clause which the Committee has just accepted without amendment it will be possible under subsection (2, a) for some of these works which may be a nuisance to be continued for an indefinite period. I cannot think that the Government wish in that case to deny the inhabitants of Chelsea and Battersea the remedy which otherwise they would have under the law of an injunction to prevent that nuisance continuing.
  It seems, therefore, that Clause 4 goes too far. I have not thought fit to put down any Amendment because I am speaking to the Committee after this Bill has been given a Second Reading by the House, and I desire to approach the matter sympathetically from what is now the common desire on both sides of the Committee. I hope that the Committee has appreciated that this is a serious point. While there may be excellent grounds, in order to avoid delay, in excluding the remedy of an injunction which might hold up the works necessary for the Exhibition, there is really no ground whatever for excluding that remedy, should it be decided or attempted to make a nuisance permanent after the Exhibition is over.
  I cannot think that that can be seriously disputed. In the case of a nuisance by noise, which is the most probable nuisance which we have to consider, the remedy of injunction is the only effective remedy. I need hardly say, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it from me, that I am not assuming either in any body set up in connection with the Festival or in the L.C.C. an indifference to the well being of the people of Battersea or Chelsea, but I say that we are doing a very serious thing indeed if we exclude the remedy of injunction, not merely for the period before the Exhibition takes
  970
  place and while it is taking place, but for any extension of the use of the works which may be possible under Clause 3.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: I should not like the right hon. Gentleman to think that I am in any way opposed to the ordinary appurtenances of an English fair. One of the most hair-raising experiences of my life—and I use the adjective advisedly—was when with my daughter I was in the front row of a vehicle making the most appalling assents and descents on a switchback at the White City. I suggest that that kind of recreation is in its place in some localities and out of place in others. The right hon. Gentleman has said that only seven acres out of the 37 are to be specifically devoted to amusement. I am concerned that what goes on in that seven acres shall not seriously interfere with the enjoyment of the people using the other 30 acres, if there are to be the attendant noises from roundabouts, switchbacks and possibly shooting galleries, and the rest of it, together with the glare at night.
  All that may be admirable in certain places but it will be out of place in Battersea Park, and will seriously interfere with the enjoyment of visitors to the park as a whole. I would like the Committee who are controlling this, if they read the report of this Debate, to know that there are some hon. Members who hope they will take into account and consider the interest of the park as a whole, and not isolate that particular seven acres.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman put both the purpose and the power of this Clause completely fairly, but there is one matter on which at any rate I am uncertain. By this Clause we authorise the setting up of what may be a noisy state of affairs and we deprive the people living nearby of what, as has been rightly said by my hon. and learned Friend, is the only effective remedy, that is, procedure by injunction. In order that we may judge the Tightness and wrongness of doing that, I consider it is relevant to know how near to dwelling houses it is intended that these works should be erected.
  I think that there is some weight in the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), that it would affect the people

  971
  using the park, but what is much more important is the effect on people living near to these works. It is intended that these works shall be open in the summer, the time of the year when people are inclined to have their windows open and would therefore be more susceptible to noise than at any other time of the year. If these works are to be erected near dwelling-houses and if, as it must be in order to be a success, the fair is open during the evening time, it may produce an intolerable state of affairs for people who have the good or the bad fortune to live near. It would relieve my mind if the right hon. Gentleman could give some indication of the distance between these proposed works and the nearest dwelling-house.
  Mr. C. Williams: I wish to put one point to the right hon. Gentleman regarding the matter of an injunction. Everyone would agree that we do not want an injunction between now and the time that the show is on. But what does alarm the ordinary person such as myself, is that when it is over there is apparently no power of getting the matter put right again. I should like an assurance that this power against injunction will lapse when the Exhibition is over. Such a power is the only real defence in these matters, and should be given back to the neighbourhood as soon as possible.
  Sir S. Reed: I wish to make clear what I meant when I said that senior park keepers should have magisterial powers. I use the parks a great deal and I can assure the Minister that we shall never get rid of the nuisance caused by thoughtless and vicious persons until they can be fined on the spot. They could be given the option of going to court. It is a practice not unknown in other countries, and it has got rid of this abominable nuisance of the careless destruction of flowers and plants, and also of the depositing of litter which is such a hideous eyesore.
  Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) has modified his original proposal, but it is still too dangerous for me to consider. In reply to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I would say that the siting of the amusement park will be as far as possible from habitations.
  972
  No doubt between now and other stages of the Bill the hon. Member will look at the plans and may be able to satisfy himself on that point. I would assure the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that the case has to be proved to the satisfaction of the courts and not of the company, although there would be an opportunity for the company and the claimant to come to some agreement.
  I wish to thank the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) for raising the point which he did. I understand that Clause 4 does not apply this power to a building retained permanently. It is confined to the period of the Festival. I recognise, however, that it is a valid point although no one has contemplated that it should continue after the period of the Festival. I recognise also that within the powers of Clause 3 the London County Council has the right of retaining certain buildings, and if the nuisance should be directed to anything of that kind then the matter is one which should be looked into. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that between now and the Bill reaching another place it will be further examined.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 6. —(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO FESTIVAL WORKS AND ENTERTAINMENTS.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Earl Winterton:I have a question to ask which I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer as completely and as satisfactorily as he answered the other question which I put to him. I am open to conviction—this is not a party matter and we are discussing it on a non-party basis—but under this Clause it appears to me that we are giving exceptionally wide powers. As anyone acquainted with the entertainment industry will be aware, the most stringent regulations are laid down, both through the law of the country and also in some cases by local building regulations, to prevent the erection of buildings which are unsatisfactory from the point of view of safety and the question of fire,

  973
  or of a possible stampede in the event of people being alarmed. Such regulations are far more stringent in this country than in any Continental country I know, and, as I understand this Clause, it gets round the whole of that elaborate provision.
  The company can produce these entertainments—about which we have been told singularly little. I do not know who is to carry out the public performance of stage plays, or who will give the cinematograph exhibitions, but I do not wish to raise that point now. Apparently, however, under this Clause it is possible to get round all the elaborate precautions laid down for the protection of the public; and anything which the company says is fit to be erected for the purpose of providing entertainment can be erected. Has there been any such provision in any Bill, public or private which has previously come before Parliament? I do not see why it is necessary. Surely any entertainment which is to be given should be subject to the ordinary law of the land. For example, what about Sunday entertainment? Does this get round the Sunday Cinematograph Act and other Acts? We want more information on this point than was given during the Second Reading Debate.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Marlowe: I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord has said. This is a matter which deserves consideration. The Minister of Transport has not the advantage of having either of the Law Officers with him at the moment to advise him on this matter. I hope that he will take an early opportunity of investigating the position. It seems that here the entertainments, which are in the nature of those being provided by the State, are being put above the law which applies to the ordinary person who provides such entertainment. It is rather unfortunate that when the State enters this field of activity it should take to itself privileges which are not accorded to those who are in ordinary business. I should have thought that above all the State ought to be the first to set a good example.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member who is at the Table must resume his seat. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to take a book to his seat if he wishes,
  974
  but he is not entitled to read it at the Table.
  Mr. Keeling: I wished to look up the Public Health Act, 1936, and I find that there are three volumes of the 1936 Statutes. I will remove them all.
  The Chairman: Mr. Marlowe.
  Mr. Marlowe: I was saying that I should have thought that the State should be the first to set a good example in these matters. As the noble Lord pointed out, this exempts the company which is acting on behalf of the State from statutes and regulations which are part of the ordinary law for the safety of people attending this sort of function. The noble Lord asked whether any similar provision had been made on a previous occasion. I can only recall one myself, and that was earlier this year when we were discussing the Licensing Act. The Home Secretary will remember that we had a discussion about a provision which exempted licensees in the new towns from certain requirements of the ordinary law which had to be observed by the ordinary licensee.
  It seems singularly unfortunate that that should happen twice in one year and that we should find that, immediately the State begins to enter into the provision of facilities of this kind, it begins to set itself above the law. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take legal advice about the matter so that the Committee may be fully informed of the effect of this Clause if it is passed without Amendment. The Minister should himself set the standard which he expects the subjects to follow. It would be most unfortunate if we were to pass a provision which imposes one standard on ordinary people and another standard on some business which is run by the State or by somebody on its behalf.
  Sir W. Darling: This Clause interests me because it discloses quite clearly a position which has been rather ambiguous to some of us in the past. In Battersea Park it is evidently the intention of the company to produce stage plays, dancing, entertainments, boxing, wrestling and cinematograph exhibitions under somewhat unusual circumstances. Clause 6 deals with such buildings as may be erected in connection with these entertainments. It has this curious condition.

  975
  If the buildings are of such a character that the London County Council desires to retain them after the Festival is over, they shall be retained. If they are of such a character that the London County Council does not desire to retain them
  "the Minister shall secure that such works are removed as soon as may be after the appropriate date."
  I should like to know what the effect of that provision will be.
  If I represented the London County Council and if I were desirous of securing certain interesting buildings for the use of the council in Battersea Park, I should build them of the most permanent quality and thereby become empowered to retain them. If I desired to retain them, I should make it worth my while to see that they were retained. The Minister would have no power.
  It may be that I am completely mistaken, but I suggest that the Clause seems to encourage the London County Council to make certain permanent structures for wrestling, boxing, dancing cinematograph exhibitions and stage plays. It encourages the council to do this because if it does, it has the power to say whether or not they will continue to exist. If it does not build them in this complete and exhaustive fashion, then the Minister will have power.
  If a Bill were being produced for the complete transformation of Battersea Park from what it is into what some people have said it may well be—a fun fair—this Clause seems to indicate that these aims are being sought to be achieved in a subtle fashion. I hope that I am mistaken, but I cannot get away from the perfectly clear statement in Clause 6 that if the council does not want them, the Minister shall remove them, but if the council wants them, the Minister shall be powerless.
  Mr. H. Strauss: When we discussed Clause 4 the Minister was good enough to admit that there was a point which he would look into in order to ensure that the exceptional exemptions, which are given in some places from the common law, and in other cases from statutory law, shall not affect the rights of persons interested after the Festival has ended. I think that here I am with my noble Friend
  976
  the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe). A similar position may arise as regards the London Building Acts.
  It may be one thing to hasten on the building of the necessary works by exempting those concerned from having to apply for various permissions under the London Building Acts, though I think that is rather a curious commentary on how long it takes to obtain these various consents if applications are made by ordinary people at ordinary times. But the bigger point is how long it would be proper that any building which was not in accordance with the London Building Acts should be retained notwithstanding its non-compliance with those Acts. I think that a not dissimilar question to that which the right hon. Gentleman said he would look into on the last occasion arises also on this Clause.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: I agree with the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I can imagine that the explanation is that it would be unreasonable to apply to temporary buildings in Battersea Park the restrictions that apply to permanent buildings generally. If that is so, could the Minister say whether the temporary buildings in Battersea Park will be freed from restrictions which fall on the temporary buildings put up by a private purveyor of entertainment elsewhere? Is there to be a distinction between the buildings in Battersea Park and those which might be put up elsewhere?
  Mr. C. Williams: I should like to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). As the Minister knows, we have had special reasons for hurrying this Bill through certain of its stages, not only on the Floor of the House. This has been done because it has been accepted that it is absolutely necessary to get on with the work. We have here a very peculiar situation. There will be certain buildings erected, and, so far as I know, no one in this Committee, and probably no one else outside, knows exactly what they will be like. For practical purposes it will be left to the London County Council to decide whether they shall be permanent or not, without there having been available to us any of the ordinary

  977
  powers of objection and without any knowledge of the buildings being placed before us, as is the case with a Private Bill.
  For that reason, it is most essential that something should be done to amend this Clause so that it is no longer the case that the L.C.C. is the only authority which will have any power to decide the matter. I do not agree that the responsibility for this decision should be left with the L.C.C. The Minister himself should say whether certain buildings should remain or not, but the L.C.C. might be given an option of saying whether they wish to take them over or not. If they do not wish to do so, then the buildings must go, but it should not be within their power to say that they will retain any particular building.
  The danger of that situation was illustrated clearly by one of my hon. Friends a few moments ago. As the Clause stands, they will have the decision that will enable them to acquire vast buildings not paid for out of their own rates, but paid for by the ordinary taxpayer. That being the case, I feel strongly that, before this Clause leaves the Committee, we should have an assurance from the Minister that the deciding voice in this question of the permanency or otherwise of certain buildings should be that of the Minister, and that the decision should not rest entirely with the L.C.C.
  Mr. Barnes: I quite agree that in a Clause of this description, providing exemptions which apply generally to citizens, it is desirable that we should look with particular care on their effect. In this case, I consider that there is no real difficulty. There is no dispute between the London County Council, the local authorities, and the Festival authorities. Generally speaking, it is the desire of the Festival authorities that they should conform to and go through the normal procedure regarding buildings and entertainment licences. It became clear after consultations had taken place with the L.C.C. and others that the local authorities considered that they could not deal with these plans in the time available. The only way out of the difficulty was to provide exemption from the provisions of the London Buildings Acts, 1930 to 1939.
  As a matter of fact, one cannot take out a licence for any entertainment until
  978
  a building is erected, and, as the local authorities in this case and under this arrangement will not be authorising the buildings in the normal way, they could not accept the responsibility for the licensing of the entertainments, so that there followed automatically the two sets of exemptions which had to be taken together.
  It would be quite wrong to assume that because, for timing reasons, that procedure has had to be adopted, any buildings that are erected will be below the standards that would normally prevail if the proper machinery or procedure had been followed, and the Government have conveyed to Lord Ismay, the president of the Festival Council, the view that they will expect in every way the normal standards to be followed. Arrangements have been made with the L.C.C. for their experts to be associated with the Festival office in order to see that these standards are observed, and arrangements have also been made with the Ministry of Works to give similar assistance. There is no question that any buildings that are erected will be below the standard that would be required if the normal procedure had been followed.
  With regard to the retention of the buildings, that is a matter which the London County Council itself will determine. I do not see any objection to that, and, if any capital has been expended on a building which is later found to be of permanent value and advantage to the amenities of Battersea Park, there seems to me to be no purpose in pulling that building down or destroying it. That is a matter for the L.C.C. to decide with the Festival authorities at the end of the proceedings. Those buildings which they do not require will be removed and the park reinstated in its original form.
  I hope that this explanation will allay some of the anxieties which have been expressed on these matters, together with the assurance that every reasonable precaution will be taken to see that, whilst these exemptions are granted, they will not in fact result in a lowering of the standard that normally prevails.
  Mr. C. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the point which my hon. Friends and I put to him. Our real objection is that the body which has the final power to determine whether

  979
  buildings shall remain or not is the L.C.C. We should prefer the Ministry to make that final decision.
  Mr. Barnes: I thought I had answered that. Surely, as Battersea Park is the property of the L.C.C, who are generally responsible for the amenities of the park, that body ought to determine whether any buildings should remain or not?
  Mr. Marlowe: I hope I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, because what he said does not seem to me to make sense. As I understood him, he said that it was not possible to keep to the ordinary process of law because time did not allow of these buildings being built to the required standard; but he went on to say that, in fact, they would be built in compliance with the normal standard.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Barnes: I did not say they would not be built in accordance with those standards, but that the time did not permit of following the normal procedure to ensure that in the ordinary way.
  Mr. Marlowe: In that event, I did misunderstand the right hon. Gentleman, and it does make a little more sense now, though it is still not entirely satisfactory. The particular point of which I am thinking concerns the provisions already laid down dealing with the showing of cinematograph films. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that very high standards have been set for such buildings on account of the very high inflammability of the films. Can we be assured that no building will be used for the showing of films which falls below the standard which has been laid down for the private exhibitor, who has a very heavy burden placed upon him?
  Mr. Barnes: I am sure that follows.
  Earl Winterton: It is right to place on record, without in any way being offensive, which I do not want to be, that we go from extreme to extreme, and that the House of Commons in Committee is now passing a Clause conferring a power which has never yet been given to any public or private authority. In the ordinary course, before people can produce entertainments they have to erect the building and get permission. I think
  980
  passing this Clause indicates the present state of affairs in this country. [Interruption.] I do not see anything funny in that. A law has been passed to protect the interests of the public in circumstances such as fire and stampede, and that law is being broken this afternoon. I do not think that is funny, and the public will regard it as rather serious. I am not prepared to oppose it now, but I should like it to be placed on record that we have created a very considerable precedent this afternoon.
  Mr. Barnes: I must make it perfectly plain that there will be no question here of evading the regulations or conditions which are normally provided against fire or stampede or matters of that description. It must be accepted that these standards will be applied to any buildings erected by the Festival authorities.
  Mr. H. Strauss: A good deal of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I thought, was made on the assumption that Clause 6 (1) applied to the works executed in Battersea Park, but if he will look at subsection (3, b) he will see that it says:
  "subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to works in Battersea Park."
  I think that what we are doing in this Clause is not only serious on the grounds given by my noble Friend, but also attains a very high level of obscurity. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consult his advisers. I do not profess to have examined fully the legal implications of this Clause, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to amend it so as to make quite obvious what is meant and to meet some of the points of criticism that have been made.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I wish to follow up the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman to my noble Friend a few moments ago that all the safety requirements laid down in the relevant Measures would, in fact, be carried out in this connection. That is a very valuable and important point. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not regard it as offensive if I say that it would be better to have it in the Bill. Is there any objection to adding at the end of this Clause some proviso to the effect that although exemptions are given, the necessary standards shall be maintained? Such a statement would quiet the anxieties to which

  981
  this matter has given rise, and as the right hon. Gentleman has said that that is what is going to happen, there could surely be no objection to doing that.
  Mr. C. Williams: Before we leave this Clause I wish to say that I still strongly object to it. I have as much respect for the London County Council as anyone, but I must say that all the proceedings as far as this is concerned have gone through at great speed, and many things have been done in the Bill which actually do not give the ordinary individual the usual power of objecting to, say, buildings, or anything of that kind. That has been done through sheer goodwill towards this Exhibition. The right hon. Gentleman knows that better than I do.
  That being the case, I think that as we have given this tremendous power to the London County Council to put up these buildings, there should be some possibility of ensuring that if after the Exhibition, such buildings are found to be generally objectionable in some way or other, it shall not remain entirely with the London County Council to decide what shall happen to them. It would be much better if there was a provision in the Clause giving the London County Council the option of taking them over. Obviously, they would not take them over if they did not meet the ordinary requirements, but the Ministry should have power to see that, if necessary, certain buildings are removed. I think that such a provision should be in the Clause, although I thoroughly dislike the Clause.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 7. —(PROVISIONS AS TO RIVER TRAFFIC.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. G. Williams:I wish to ask a question about subsection (2), which deals with regulating the use of vessels. Can the Minister say whether the Company themselves will run these vessels or whether Tom, Dick and Harry are to be allowed to come along with little craft and ply for hire, and take people from the main Exhibition to Battersea Park? It would obviously be much better if the Company were to run their
  982
  own vessels, and if they do so, what type of vessels are they going to use? The Dutch have the most wonderful river buses in the world. They run down the canals and through the harbours, and can stand rough weather. I suggest that if we are short of vessels, we ought to pay attention to the Dutch market for our requirements in this direction.
  Mr. H. Strauss: I must admit an interest. I take great pleasure in "mucking about" in a small boat on the Thames. Although there is a certain amount in this Clause which I welcome, regarding the permanent retention of landing stages which may be a real improvement to London, there is one point I wish to raise with the right hon. Gentleman because it very much concerns his Department. One of the reasons why he is in charge of this Measure is, of course, because he is concerned with transport.
  I am a little surprised that under subsection (2) the London County Council is to be the authority making and enforcing the bylaws concerning these landing stages. I should have thought that in the event of their being made permanent, the right hon. Gentleman might well desire that the Port of London Authority, which is, of course, the authority which has charge of Cadogan Pier on the opposite bank, should also have something to do with the management of and the regulations concerning the piers and landing stages on the south bank. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to look into the question whether he really desires to exclude the Port of London Authority from being concerned with the landing stages on the south bank when, of course, they are the authority for those on the north bank.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I think it is an excellent thing that these landing stages are being built, and I have only one doubt concerning them. If they are being constructed for permanent use after the Festival is over, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that the position of the landing stages will be such that the amenities of Battersea Park will not be adversely affected in any way. I appreciate that they must be in a certain place in the river in order to get the maximum depth of water, but I should like the

  983
  Minister to give an assurance that they will not adversely affect the amenities of the Park.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Having regard to the interest declared by my hon. and learned Friend the junior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) in traffic on the Thames, having regard to the recognised and greater interest of my hon. Friend the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert), and having regard to the fact that this House will have few opportunities for showing favours to University Members, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not grant University representatives exemption from all regulations connected with landing stages on the Thames during the period of the Festival.
  Mr. Barnes: With regard to the point put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), I should think that the piers would represent a permanent advantage to Battersea Park. In my view, they would certainly have the advantage of enabling residents in other parts of London, who always have a difficulty in going from north to south on our existing bus and other traffic routes, to do so without changing. It would also provide an opportunity after the Exhibition for many people to visit Battersea Park. No doubt the Festival period will encourage tens of thousands of people to visit the Park who have never yet done so, and will make it more popular than it has ever been before.
  5.0 p.m.
  In reply to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) concerning the powers of the London County Council, I would point out that in Clause 7 (3) the London County Council and the Port of London Authority are brought in, and that in subsection (5) the Minister of Transport will be the confirming authority for the by-laws concerned. As the hon. and learned Member is aware, it is the practice of the Ministry of Transport in all these matters to use the local authority or established statutory bodies for carrying out the work. They are familiar with and responsible for all these arrangements. All that this Clause does is to provide additional powers for the Minister to make grants for the construction of these
  984
  piers. It is not desirable or equitable that, for Festival purposes, these bodies should have to incur the whole cost of the construction of the new piers.
  As I indicated in the Second Reading Debate, the traffic on the river will be very considerably augmented, and from the safety point of view and to avoid traffic chaos it is desirable that the Minister should have powers for the purpose of regulating the traffic. As to whether any Tom, Dick or Harry will be able to run a water bus, or whether the Company will conduct these operations, I should like to make it clear that the Company will not have power to conduct these operations. The Company is quite a passing factor, created merely for the purpose of running the Festival Gardens for six months; but the water buses—and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson) has played a considerable part in popularising the traffic on the Thames—are run by watermen who run their own craft and are experienced River Thames operators. It is desired to see that the service comes under partial control and that the vessels used are of a standard which will ensure the safety and the comfort of their passengers.
  Mr. C. Williams: I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there will not be too many rigid controls so far as these craft are concerned. It would be undesirable to lay down that we should have official water buses only, particularly if they were to be run by the London County Council. I should prefer to see them run by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) so that he could come up with his little party and land in the ordinary way. We do not want everyone to be restricted to using official buses and things of that sort. There is too much of that sort of thing. I am glad that the Minister is moving so steadily to the Right and giving private individuals their chance.
  Mr. Barnes: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. The purpose of these regulations is to prevent persons like the hon. and learned Member from "mucking about" on the Thames.
  Mr. Williams: Unlike some of us, perhaps my hon. and learned Friend is not

  985
  so well versed in the English language, and he sometimes uses words wrongly. What I am saying is that the ordinary person who may live further up the Thames should be able to come to the Exhibition and use his own boat to get there. That is what I thought was the purport of the Minister's reply.
  There is a very large number of watermen on the Thames; I used to know some of them. Some of them have a most remarkable power of language, and it would be a pity if they did not have the opportunity of showing that the English language has a very considerable range. Just as some people live up the river, so there are people living down the river who should be able to come in their own boats and visit the Exhibition without all the rules and regulations for which some people would appear to wish.
  Mr. H. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman rightly called my attention to Clause 7 (5), which I had noticed, and to subsection (3) which he thought met my point. I do not want to be too dogmatic, but without further examination I am a little doubtful whether it does meet my point. I want to be quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman's legal advisers have considered what will be the position of these landing stages if, as is hoped, they are retained and remain permanent after the Exhibition is over. The Minister will see in subsection (3) the words:
  "… landing stages in the River Thames (not being festival landing stages) … "
  I only draw his attention to those words because I am not quite certain that he has brought in the Port of London Authority in the way in which I am quite certain he wishes to bring them in, in the event of the landing stages being kept on permanently after the Exhibition is over. I have no doubt that he will look into the point, and I will leave the matter there.
  Mr. Barnes: The Port of London Authority are generally responsible for landing stages.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 8. —(GRANTS TOWARDS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL LANDING STAGES.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir John Anderson: There is one small point which I should like to bring to the notice of the Committee arising from this Clause. Clause 8, as hon. Members will observe, makes provision for grants towards the expense of constructing additional landing stages, not being Festival landing stages. It makes no provision for any contribution towards the cost of operating or maintaining such landing stages. The point I wish to make is that there is nothing in this Bill which affects the rights, powers or obligations of the Port of London Authority in regard to the provision or maintenance of landing stages when all this is over. The powers of the authority are preserved. The question of the allocation of expenditure which may be incurred hereafter on such of these landing stages as may be permanent can be discussed at the proper time, but there is nothing in the Bill which lays down anything in that respect or which affects in any way the existing powers and the responsibilities of the Port of London Authority. If I did not make this point, I might hereafter be accused of having allowed the Committee to part with this Clause through a misapprehension.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 11. —(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, ETC.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir W. Darling:I find some confusion in the fact that while "the Company" means "any company," "the County Council" means "the London County Council"; "the exhibition" means the exhibition, "the gardens" means the gardens, "the Minister" means the Minister. But "the Company" means "any company." I do not want to be hypercritical, but it would seem to me, with some knowledge perhaps of finance, that if the Festival Gardens Company referred

  987
  to in the Financial Memorandum, paragraph 1, had any little difficulties, I would rely upon the definition in Clause 11 and get rid of the inconvenient company, because the Minister has powers to form another company. It seems a little invidious. Is the Minister not satisfied with the constitution of the Festival Gardens Company, and does he wish to be able, if necessary, to contract out by using "any" company?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. C. Williams: I am sure the Minister or the Home Secretary or someone on the Front Bench wishes to reply because we have in this Clause one of the worst absurdities which has ever been produced in a Government Department. With the exactitude which we always expect from him, or from any hon. Member from north of the Tweed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) has pointed out the position. Are we to be left in a position in which we pass this Clause with the knowledge that, under the Clause, if any old body of people call themselves together and consider themselves a company, they can act in this way? Surely the Minister can give us some reply? We may have misinterpreted the position or it may be a misprint, for there are lots of misprints in Bills. We almost need to have a third House to correct Government misprints Can we have some answer?
  Mr. Wilson Harris: We have references to further landing stages and to landing stages authorised by paragraph so-and-so. Why should, it not be "the company authorised by"—and then the particular reference in the Bill? Why "any company?" Why not the company authorised by the Act?
  Mr. Peter Roberts: May I put one question? Clause 2 states:
  "The Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, make loans to the company."
  Does that mean make loans to any company?
  Mr. Barnes: I thought I had made quite plain earlier, when I read out the names of the Festival Gardens Company, that that has been very definitely determined. I know that in legal matters
  988
  these descriptive words are often put in. I do not know whether they are now unnecessary words, inserted in case the company had not been formed in time or in case the company will not be formed in time, but I thought I had made it quite plain earlier that the personnel of the company, the directors, have been determined. Invitations have been sent out and accepted. If there are any words to be tidied up, that can be done in another place. As far as I know, everything is in order and there is no question of "any old body" of persons, as one hon. Member suggested, other than the directors.
  Mr. C. Williams: Why on earth could not the Minister have said that when he was asked? I object when the Minister sits there and compels Member after Member to press him for an answer which, apparently, he knows all the time. It is a frightful waste of time and I wish the attention of the Lord President could be called to it.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Does not that explanation make it still more incomprehensible that it should still be called "any company"? The Minister says the board has actually been appointed. It is certainly not "any company"; it is the authorised company. Could not the Minister assure us that he will adopt words of that kind at a later stage?
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.14 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  It is evident from the discussion which took place on the Money Resolution that the provisions of this Bill are not only acceptable but welcome to both sides of the House. None the less, it may perhaps be advantageous if I follow the usual rule and deal in a short time with the purpose and scope of the Bill and the reasons for supporting it.

  989
  As was explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in the Debate on the Money Resolution, the provisions of the Bill are largely financial. Its main purpose is, as a special and temporary measure, to put the provision of capital for Service housing more on the basis of the finance of housing generally, except where, as in outlying or overseas stations, Service housing is to be distinguished, as a separate defence need, from the general, ordinary housing needs of the nation. In other words, in so far as Service housing can be regarded as a part of and as a contribution to the national housing programme as a whole, we propose to put it more on the financial basis of the national programme itself.
  To this end it is proposed under the Bill that the Service Departments shall be enabled to borrow money to provide approved married quarters in the United Kingdom up to a maximum of £40 million over the five-year period beginning 1st April, 1950. Any money so borrowed will be repaid by the Service Departments over a 60-year period. The annual repayments will be carried on the Service Estimates in the normal way. There is, therefore, no question of inflation of defence expenditure. It is merely that the Service Departments will be allowed under the Bill to finance a certain proportion of their housing on borrowed money, in the same way as local authorities do, rather than to find all the capital required from their current revenue. I suggest that this exceptional course is justified by the special needs of the Services to overtake the heavy arrears which have undoubtedly accumulated in the provision of married quarters.
  It is the policy of the Government, and indeed I would imagine it is the common policy of both sides of the House, that the highest possible proportion of our peace-time defence requirements should be met by Regular Forces. It is therefore necessary, I submit, in the national interest that we should take all proper steps to stimulate recruitment to the Regular Forces; and in this connection the provision or absence of married quarters plays a part of very great importance. After all, those who have been in any one of the Services will agree with me when I say that in the nature of things the Service man's job requires him to be mobile. He and his family
  990
  have to be ready to move from place to place during his Service as his duty may require.
  In present circumstances, unless the married man can be provided with a married quarter, his position in searching for accommodation as he moves from one area to another at relatively short intervals—at least, that has been the case in recent years owing to the unbalance of the Forces following the run-down—has been one of almost intolerable difficulty. The difficulty is not merely that there is an insufficient number of married quarters. It is that the married Service man, by reason of the nature of his work, is in a special difficulty. Owing to the long waiting lists of permanent local residents, local authorities are often unable to help him. Until the problem has been tackled decisively, there is no doubt that the married Service man will remain at a disadvantage compared with the rest of the community. This is bound to be a grave deterrent to recruiting and to the re-engagement of our experienced men.
  Speaking from my own experience since I have been at the Air Ministry, I am satisfied that the position of many Service men, both officers and other ranks, has become a real social problem. Many of them have been compelled to put their families in furnished rooms, for which in many cases they have had to pay exorbitant rents. This has placed a financial burden on them, occasioning them worry and anxiety which, in my view, is bad for them and also for the country.
  It may be asked why it is that greater progress has not been made in the past in providing married quarters for the Forces, and perhaps I may enumerate one or two reasons. In the first place, there is the fact that, as far as the Army and the Royal Air Force are concerned, there is a greatly increased requirement over pre-war days. At this moment both are considerably greater than they were before the war. Furthermore, there is a higher proportion of young married Service men and officers. It will be remembered that before the war an officer had to attain the age of 30, and an other rank the age of 25, before qualifying for a marriage allowance, whereas the ages have now been reduced from 30 to 25 in the case of the officer

  991
  and from 25 to 21 in the case of the other rank.
  Another reason is a financial one. The Service Estimates, since the end of the war, have been necessarily the subject of drastic pruning, and I am afraid that the building programmes of each has suffered in consequence. We have found that the condition of providing all the capital required for Service housing out of current Service Votes has acted very restrictively on their housing programmes. There is no doubt that other housing authorities in the country would also have found their efforts handicapped if they had had to find their capital for housing requirements out of revenue. Under the Bill, the Service Departments will be able to plan their housing programmes on lines similar to those of the local authorities. The Minister of Defence gave an estimate on the last occasion when we discussed this matter, and perhaps I may be allowed to repeat it. The Services estimate that they need another 30,000 new permanent houses before their most urgent requirements can be met, and these we hope to provide at the annual average rate of 5,000.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Including overseas?
  Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. The whole basis of the Bill is to deal with the problem of married quarters as part of the national housing problem of the United Kingdom. This average rate of 5,000 a year in the United Kingdom is about double the rate we have so far achieved in any year since the war.
  Earl Winterton: How are the houses to be divided up between the three Services?
  Mr. Henderson: I can speak only for my own Department. It is 4,000 for the Royal Air Force for the next three years.
  As to the type of houses to be built, they will be financed by loans, subject of course, to the approval of the Treasury, and the only types so far approved are within the limits of size adopted in the case of houses built by local authorities. It has also been agreed that money should be advanced by way of loans only for Service housing likely to be of value for general housing purposes in the event of
  992
  the accommodation no longer being required for Service purposes.
  May I at this juncture give the noble Lord the assurance he asked for on the last occasion. It is certainly not intended to exercise the powers of approval in a narrow and unduly restrictive manner.
  Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Henderson: As far as the allocation between officers and other ranks is concerned, our plans are based on a careful census of demand for the various ranks of the three Services, and are intended to meet these demands equitably. As I said earlier, since the end of the war many officers have had great difficulty in finding suitable accommodation, except at exorbitant rents. Building since the war has been almost entirely confined to the provision of other ranks' quarters, and it is now intended, I think rightly, to make a start in dealing with the arrears in the provision of quarters for officers.
  Finally, the House will perhaps expect me to say something about the effect of these proposals on the civilian housing programme. The Minister of Defence stated:
  "The total housing programme of the Services, whether financed from loans or from Votes, will continue to be provided for, as at present, within the total allocation for housing under the capital investment programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 2035.]
  The magnitude of this programme is not, therefore, affected. On the other hand, it is clear from the figures I have quoted that the number of new houses necessary to make this vast improvement in the provision of married quarters for the Services is extremely small in relation to the housing programme of the country as a whole. As compared with the size of that programme, the Service man has certainly not up to now been allocated a fair share of the national housing resources.
  Above all, I emphasise that it is wrong to think of the Services housing programme and the civilian housing programme as being distinct and as not reacting upon each other; in fact, the housing programme of this country is one problem and not two. The Services housing programme is part of the national housing programme, and to the extent that we can increase the number of married

  993
  quarters in the Services, the demands on civilian accommodation will be correspondingly reduced, the problem of the civilian authorities to that extent therefore being alleviated. What we are doing is to leave the total size of the national programme unaltered, but to allocate what is only a slightly larger but more equitable share of that programme to the three Services. To sum up, the effect of this Bill will be to bring the Service man more into line with his civilian counterpart, and give him a fairer share of the nation's housing resources than he has enjoyed in the past.
  5.29 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: This is not a party Bill. As the Secretary of State for Air knows, we gave it our blessing on the last occasion we discussed this matter, and we should have been quite ready, to use a vulgar phrase, to allow it to go through "on the nod." Without wishing to be effusive in any way, may I say that we have had a valuable speech from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has cleared up one or two points in connection with the Bill? I welcome this opportunity to say something which I did not mention in the previous discussion, because in the Debate on the Financial Resolution we were necessarily curtailed, as one is not allowed to raise matters except in relation to what is actually in the Resolution, whereas on the Bill we can speak more freely.
  The point I want to raise is in connection with housing overseas, but before doing so I should like to withdraw a suggestion I made to the Minister of Defence on the previous occasion. I then suggested, on the spur of the moment, that priority should be given, or that the Minister or the Government should use their powers to insist on priority being given, to married Service men in the allocation of houses. It will be remembered by those who were present at the consideration of the Financial Resolution that it was made clear that the Government will have powers of requisitioning, and I suggested that they should, if necessary, requisition houses. However, I think that that would cause, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated at the time, a good deal of criticism and might do harm to the Services; though in justification of what I said I would
  994
  quote from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just himself said, namely, that the Services had not been allocated a fair share of the housing programme.
  This, as I say, is a non-party Bill, and I do not want to make too much of the point, but I would remind the House that we have constantly on this side of the House—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), who, I hope will catch your eye later on, Sir, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) particularly—said that housing for married officers and n.c.o.'s in the Army was disgraceful. We have made that point again and again over the last three or four years, and we cannot but say today that we regard ourselves as having been justified by the admission of the Government that exceptional measures have to be taken.
  Now I come to the point about the comparatively narrow scope of the Bill. I should like to see the words "Great Britain "—and I am entitled, I think, to raise this point on Second Reading of the Bill—taken out; and I intend to use the word "military" in the proper, grammatical sense of the term as including all three Services; and I should like to see the term "military housing" applied, within, of course, the scope of the Bill more generally than as laid down. I will give my reasons for that. I hope I shall succeed in persuading the House through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that they are powerful reasons.
  First of all, I would quote from what the Secretary of State said in justifying this Bill. He said that the circumstances of his profession—meaning by that, the profession of a Service man—"require him to be mobile, and the search for accommodation has been one of almost incredible difficulty." I hope that nobody in the House will be less favourable—it would be a wounding accusation to make, and I should hesitate to make it against any hon. Member, to say he was less favourable—I hope that nobody in this House is less favourable to the housing of the man who gives his services to the country in the Armed Forces than to housing civilians. The Service man has as much right to be considered as the most valuable civilians, whether miners agricultural labourers, or anyone else—

  995
  just as much right; and that is putting it extremely mildly. So the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that "the search for accommodation has been one of almost incredible difficulty."
  What happens now? After going through poignant anxiety, separated very often from his wife and children, the young married officer—and many other officers are married—or n.c.o. or private soldier—and I think that there are more marriages in the Services now than there were; and this applies to the airmen, as the Secretary of State knows—obtains accommodation, after months of waiting and going through poignant anxiety, near his station at home; then he is sent overseas. We have a far greater proportion of our troops overseas than we have ever had—excluding India; but the case of India does not arise really, because there was accommodation there. So he is sent overseas to find that he has not the slightest chance of getting a house for his wife and children. I quite agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the search for accommodation is one of almost incredible difficulty.
  By a most happy chance the Secretary of State for War has given his views to a newspaper, and as one is entitled to refer to what a Minister says in an interview, I propose to quote from a report in the "Daily Mail" of today.
  "War Minister Shinwell now knows why he had to answer so many questions in the House of Commons about poor housing conditions for British Army families in the Suez Canal Zone. After 70 minutes visiting family quarters and private homes at Fayid today he declared: ' I had no idea accommodation was so bad'."
  I shall not read the whole of the article, but it goes on later like this:
  "Mr. Shinwell had previously visited army quarters, including ' married families' villages,' which are run on holiday camp lines and consist of bed-sitting rooms with a communal social centre and are called 'The Butlins.' In the self-contained quarters of Colonel George Marc, to which they had been moved after the doctor said Mrs. Marc must leave 'The Butlins,' Mr. Shinwell looked round and said: 'This is disgraceful. The walls must be done up at once. They are damp.' Mrs. Mary Marc replied: 'They were done up a month ago.' Mr. Shinwell: 'This must be rectified immediately.' General 'Bobby' Erskine: 'There is no money.' Mr. Shinwell: 'Money must be found.'"
  I shall get myself in trouble, and eventually get the Secretary of State for War
  996
  into trouble, if I so constantly praise him, as I have done from this bench on several occasions; but I must say, as he has said what he has, that I for one trust the Secretary of State to carry out his promise to see that these things are remedied at once.
  If I may be permitted to give a personal recollection of those conditions I would say that I know—or used to know—the Canal Zone and Fayid and what the conditions are like there as well as anybody in this House, because I was stationed there, and I know what it must be like in the heat of an Egyptian summer for families to live under such conditions—British families. No matter if anybody in the House objects to Service men as such, at least he will admit that these troops are British. They are being asked to live in what I can only describe as coolie conditions—conditions in which no wealthy Egyptian lives. Does the hon. Member see something funny in that?
  Mr. Bing: I was laughing at the remarks of the noble Lord, and that he should draw such a class distinction.
  Earl Winterton: Oh, I see. The hon. Member does not like my reference to coolies. Well, I will not make it. Perhaps it was an unfortunate one. However, they have to live under such conditions.
  Mr. Charles Smith: Perhaps, the noble Lord will amend his expression and say that those are conditions in which no human being should live?
  Earl Winterton: I quite agree. If I may say so, I am obliged for that very friendly interruption. The nomenclature coolies is rather out of date and might be regarded as offensive. However, I believe I shall have the whole House with me in this, in saying that those are conditions under which our men should not live. To be perfectly fair it is difficult unduly to blame the Government for this state of affairs in the Canal Zone—although it has taken them a very long time to find out—because the real trouble arose, the original trouble arose, from a demand by the Egyptian Government—and I am not entitled to go into that now, because it does not arise on this Bill—a demand to which the Government, unfortunately, agreed, that our

  997
  troops should leave Cairo and go to the Canal Zone.
  However, I could mention many other places besides the Canal Zone, and I would, therefore, contend with all the emphasis I can put on the point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that this Bill should be applied overseas. I can see no reason why it should not be. It would rest with the appropriate authorities to decide whether it was or was not possible from the economic point of view, in the circumstances of a particular station—to erect houses. For example, it may be said—it could hardly be said in public because it would be giving away State secrets—but it may be said that our troops may not remain in that particular quarter along the Canal for long. They may be accommodated better elsewhere, because the decision of the Egyptian Government is not, I imagine, irrevocable. But there are other places where it is quite obvious that our troops must remain—at least, I hope so—for a very long time—Hong Kong, for instance. This Bill should apply much more widely than it does.
  There is another reason in support of my argument. I have recently visited the troops in Germany and had the advantage of seeing—I must admit through the kindness of the authorities at the War Office, including Ministerial authority—the conditions under which our troops, both married and single men, are living—conditions of comfort such as our troops have never lived under before. Whatever may be said against the Germans, they certainly knew how to build barracks, and they were determined to see that the comfort of the soldier was well looked after.
  In those German barracks there are admirable living conditions, with excellent married quarters provided for a considerable number of the married men, which contrasts strikingly with some of the scandalous accommodation provided in this country. That seems to me to strengthen my contention that this Bill should cover a wider ambit. A unit may be sent to Germany and the men, many of them married, both officers and other ranks, will live in real comfort there for perhaps a year or less, and may then suddenly be moved to a place such as that I have referred to in the Canal Zone.
  998
  I am grateful to the House for apparently sympathising with my point of view. I make that suggestion to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Although I do not ask him to make any definite promise now, I do ask him to see, between now and the Committee stage, whether he cannot support my contention that this Bill should apply outside the United Kingdom. I ask him not to turn down the suggestion at once, but to consider it to see whether the scope of the Bill can be widened. Of course, I see the financial difficulty, but in my opinion the Bill has at present too narrow an ambit. Apart from that, although my hon. Friends doubtless have some other points to raise, I have nothing further to say except that we on this side of the House support the Bill.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. Austin: The placid amity between the noble Lord and the Secretary of State for War was best summarised by a phrase used recently by the noble Lord himself—" Arsenic and Old Lace." Today we had the spectacle of "Old Lace" calling in aid the views of the Secretary of State as related recently in a newspaper. I do not complain of that, and I am very glad that in the latter part of his speech the noble Lord made the qualification that the accommodation conditions in the Fayad area are due, in the main, to the action of the Egyptian Government following the expiry of our Treaty in 1946, which of course meant that we had to Vacate the living accommodation in Egypt proper, and house our men in what is regarded as emergency accommodation in the Canal Zone.
  The noble Lord seeks to widen the scope of the Bill. That is perfectly proper, and he is quite within his rights, and if I am fortunate enough to be appointed to the Committee I hope to be able to support him in that. It is a matter of great importance, because while we are concerned about the accommodation we provide for our men serving in this country, we must equally be concerned about the accommodation provided for the men serving overseas.
  My main reason for intervening very briefly tonight is to invite the Civil Lord to take part in the Debate on this very interesting Measure which deeply affects the lives of men who are serving their

  999
  country. The Minister of Defence spoke on the Money Resolution; the Secretary of State for Air has introduced the Second Reading of this Bill; and I think something ought to be said about the consideration that is to be given to the Royal Navy. As the Civil Lord is responsible for the naval establishments perhaps he will say something later on.
  I would draw to his attention the fact that the structure of the Royal Navy has changed considerably since the war. Whereas normally there was barrack accommodation at various places such as Portsmouth, Chatham, Rosyth and Devonport, today the picture has changed, because the structure of the Royal Navy has been altered in this respect. Battleships have given way to aircraft carriers as striking weapons, which means that greater priority must be given to the training of those who serve in the Naval Air Arm. As I understand it, there has been possibly a 40 per cent. increase in the personnel of that branch of the Royal Navy known today as the Naval Air Arm.
  If I remember aright, in the Debate on the Navy Estimates the Civil Lord said that priority was being given to the housing of Naval Air Arm personnel at remote stations. It is obvious that if we are to continue training Naval Air Arm personnel—not only flying personnel, but those who have to maintain the aircraft and all the others concerned—we must maintain these remote stations all over the country, in both England and Scotland, and the House ought to have some assurance that the men who have to live in these remote areas in the course of their training will not have their housing priority rights in any way affected by the provisions of this Bill. I therefore hope the Civil Lord will say something about that aspect.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. Basil Nield: As my noble Friend pointed out, the arguments on this Measure were largely canvassed at an earlier stage, but there are rather special reasons why I seek to make one or two observations about the Bill on its Second Reading. The real reason is that in or nearby the Division which I have the honour to represent in
  1000
  this House, the City of Chester, there are many Service establishments. It is the headquarters of Western Command, there are a depot and training establishments, a military hospital, and quite close by two Royal Air Force stations. As the House will appreciate, that involves the attraction to this area of a very large number of married Service men and their families, for whom it is only right that proper and adequate accommodation should be found; that is to say, suitable accommodation within proper reach of the establishment at which the soldier or airman is serving.
  We have been told that this is a very substantial need. On the Money Resolution the Minister of Defence put the total number required at 59,000, and the number of new quarters which must be built at some 30,000 or 31,000. It is therefore a considerable need. It is also a very human need, because we all have well in mind the long family separations which the war involved, and it seems very hard that now, in time of peace, there should be separations necessitated by the difficulties of obtaining accommodation. Let me cite just one case which I have submitted to the Secretary of State for Air. A married couple returned from an overseas station five years ago; the wife is living in Chester, but the husband is stationed at an R.A.F. station in the south of England, and for five years they have necessarily been living apart, with a small boy of three who scarcely knows his father. That is a situation we are all anxious to put right if it is possible to do so.
  In these circumstances, I very warmly welcome a Measure designed to help to provide more married quarters. I observe from the right hon. Gentleman's observations the other day that it is hoped to start 6,500 married quarters in the year 1950–51, and I suppose we must assume that that is the best that can be done. The sooner that these quarters are provided the less acute will become the shortage so far as civilian needs are concerned in certain areas. In that Division which I represent, the problem is a very real one, and if we can have more married quarters the civilian problem will be eased to some extent.
  There is one further point to which I wish to refer, and I think that it is a matter to which I am entitled to make

  1001
  special reference as affecting Chester. In that area, the civilian shortage of houses is really very acute, as unhappily it is in so many other parts of the country. So acute is it, that the authorities are considering, I believe, seeking to acquire some of the hutted camps, or part of them, if they are no longer needed for Service requirements. Anything for a roof for many of these unhappy people. I hope that there will be some reciprocity in this matter, and that if more married quarters are to be provided or indeed before, the Service Ministers will be willing to permit, where it is really vital that roofs should be found in any part, hutted camps to be used for civilian housing, if they are not essential for Service purposes.
  This is a rather special point, but I think that it is one of some importance in the problem with which we are concerned. I welcome this Measure, and I hope that those responsible will have listened, as I sure they have, to the plea of my noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), that there may be some extension of the ambit of the Bill thereby an improvement may be made in overseas stations where, as we well know, many accommodation difficulties obtain.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. McGovern: I am sure that Members of this House, no matter what their point of view, will be delighted to give every facility for this Measure to be passed into law and to provide the necessary finances for the housing of the troops. I think that it is generally accepted in this country by those who know the barracks of either the Navy or Army personnel, that they are inadequate and crude methods of housing those who want to join the Forces to serve their country. After all, these men are entitled to a special measure of protection because they are giving their services to a greater extent than the ordinary civilian population, and are investing their lives in any difficulty in which the country is involved. To that extent we are entitled to afford them even greater protection.
  I am rather astounded to learn of two cases of serving men whose wives qualified for houses under a local authority but who were refused the houses because their husbands were in the Forces, and were told that not until they came out
  1002
  of the Forces would they be given the houses. Under those conditions it is more and more important that the Service Departments and the House shall provide accommodation for these men. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) mentioned the housing of troops in Germany. I have a son serving in the Air Force, and he was glad when he was in Germany because the conditions there were so much superior to those in Britain. That is a strange contradiction.
  I served at one time, when 17 years of age, for five months in the Royal Navy, and I was at the Chatham Naval Dockyard. The method of housing men there was the crudest that I have ever seen, and one not likely to give the men concerned a fine impression of the country's approval of their efforts. In 1938 I saw a number of the 'barracks provided at that time in and around Berlin, in Vienna and in Prague. It struck me when I saw the accommodation in one or two towns in Czechoslovakia and thought of the barracks at Maryhill, Glasgow, and at Chatham, what a strange contradiction it was that we were always asking people to go out and defend inferior conditions against the superior conditions of these other countries where the rulers were of a different brand from ours.
  A drive should be made in housing. I have been prepared at all times since I came to this House nearly 20 years ago, to support any Government, no matter what its political colour, if it was prepared to devote its time to solving this terrible housing problem. It is a terrible thing not only for the civilian population but for the serving men. I have friends who are in the Forces and who have been waiting for accommodation. Some of them have got accommodation in my constituency, and they found that the accommodation provided was very much inferior to that which they were used to and brought up in.
  It does not do for the country to expect men to be content to leave their wives and families and themselves to live in inferior conditions. Therefore, when we are making what we call a citizens' Army' in this country and are expecting to develop a higher ideal so that men will feel that they are prepared in an emergency to give their all in defence of that which appears to them of real value, we have to see that we not only appeal to

  1003
  men to serve, but in return we give them the best conditions that can possibly be given to men who are serving their country.
  This Bill by the provision of some £40 million for that purpose will not provide a tremendous number of houses, in view of the amount which it takes to provide a satisfactory abode for any individual. I know quite well that the Secretary of State for Air will do everything in his power, in conjunction with other Ministers, to see that housing accommodation is provided for these people. I sympathise tremendously with the plea made by the noble Lord for men going out into a hot climate to which they have never been used and living in conditions which taxed their physical powers to the utmost. I would say, having served three years in the volunteers in the old days, that I would have preferred living in an ordinary tent to the conditions in which some soldiers had to live.
  My experience has been that it has taken too long to come to a proper approval and a proper estimate of the value of these men. We are no longer in the days when we took unemployed men, gave them a shilling each, threw them into any kind of barracks and expected them in an emergency to defend their country. Democracy is on trial, and we must prove that it can not only put forward ideals from the platform and in the Press, but can translate them into action on behalf of those who are ready to defend democracy. I welcome the change of attitude both on the part of the public and the Government, and I trust that not only will the provisions of the Bill be carried into law but that the utmost effort will be made to improve the conditions of the men in the Services.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Lipson: I am glad to join in the welcome that has been given to a Bill which is long overdue. I am sure that anyone who is aware of the inadequacy of the present provisions will agree with that statement. I am glad that the method by which the money is to be raised for the building of married quarters is likely to fee effective because it will mean that there will be a regular flow of new buildings. When in the past there has been agitation and attention has
  1004
  been drawn to bad cases, something has been done, but generally financial stringency has been put forward as a reason for calling a halt. Under the Bill, however, provision is made for the work to continue.
  I am glad that we are providing married quarters not only on the grounds of decent conditions for those who are serving, but also because I am sure that the Service chiefs will find that it will assist recruiting. The type of man who is joining the Services now is one we are glad to have; he appreciates the value of family life more than was generally thought to be the case in years gone by. We hear a great deal about the value of family life as a basis for all that is best in our national life, and if that is true of civilian life, it applies equally well in the Services. Not only will the provision of more married quarters attract men to the Services, but I believe that they will be willing to stay in the Services longer than they otherwise would have done.
  Everyone is agreed, except the Government, that the Bill is too narrow in scope. I would say that it is just as much or more necessary to provide married quarters overseas. There is considerable merit in the way in which it is proposed to raise the money for married quarters at home, and I believe that this is equally valid in connection with the provision of married quarters overseas. The Minister of Defence said the other day that this would offend Treasury regulations. I hope we shall not let a small matter of that kind, which savours to me of "red tape," stand in the way of a solution to a really urgent problem. If a man is serving in this country he is able to go home on leave occasionally to see his wife. He cannot do that if he is serving overseas.
  A great many in that position, particularly those in Hong Kong, have been away from their families throughout the whole of the war, and their hardship is particularly great. It seems probable that these men will be kept overseas for some time to come. Difficult as it is to get alternative married quarters in this country, it is impossible for such men to get them overseas unless they are provided by the Service Departments.
  I, therefore, ask the Government to meet what I believe is the wish of all Members in the House, and remove the

  1005
  blemish which confines the Bill to married quarters at home. Every argument in support of the provision of married quarters at home applies with same force, even greater force, to the question of the provision of married quarters overseas, and I hope the Government will take the earliest opportunity of extending the Bill in this direction.
  6.6 p.m.
  General Sir George Jeffreys: I wish to join in the chorus of approval which is being given to the principle of the Bill. As has been said by hon. Members on all sides of the House, married quarters are absolutely necessary for all ranks in the Services. Frequent changes of station and the many new camps built during the war and afterwards, both for the Army and the Air Force, have made things especially difficult for married men in the Services. I am fully aware that conditions are equally difficult for married men in the Navy. I would not presume to make a suggestion as to where and how naval married quarters should be provided, but I am well aware that there is a great need and demand for them.
  My only regret, like that of other hon. Members and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), is that the Bill does not provide for married quarters overseas. The difficult position abroad has already been pointed out, and I would only say that what has been said about the example of Germany is nothing new. All those who served in the Rhine Army in 1919 and subsequently, when the greater part of our troops were quartered in German barracks know how good those barracks and ancillary buildings were; they were an example to all of us. It is dreadful to read the account, which must be presumed to be accurate, of the Secretary of State for War's visit to the married quarters in the Canal Zone in Egypt. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that his directions—they seem to have been directions—will be carried out.
  I wish the Bill could apply to married quarters abroad, because there must be great need for them. It may have escaped notice that in moving from the Canal Zone of Egypt we evacuated camps at Abassiyeh, Cairo and Alexandria where, during our occupation.
  1006
  the proportion of married quarters and accommodation for troops was quite good. We have now apparently moved troops into the Canal Zone in pursuance of the recent agreement with Egypt, where they are housed in huts which may—and I make the comparison—meet the needs of the natives of the country, which are not so great as those of Europeans, for anyone who has served there and in other tropical countries knows that the natives are often happy in conditions which are intolerable to Europeans. I nearly said that to put Europeans and European married people into what appeared to be huts and which might possibly be appropriate for the fellaheen to live in is very nearly cruelty for white people.
  This Bill is putting the Services on the same footing as civil local authorities in regard to housing. The housing programmes of local authorities are financed by loan, and anybody who has ever had any experience of trying to get money allotted out of revenue for the purpose of the provision of buildings of any kind for the Services, however necessary, will realise how difficult it was. Buildings are always amongst the first things to be cut out when economy is necessary. If we can borrow money on reasonable terms there seems to be every prospect of the buildings materialising, and of our married people in the Services being well housed instead of inadequately housed as at the present time.
  I should not go so far as to say that there are no good married quarters. There were some quite good ones before the war, but many of the old barracks have been evacuated, and these new camps have come into being in which it will take time to provide married quarters. I put forward as a suggestion—I do not know whether it is feasible or not—that where there are temporary huts in a camp prefabricated buildings should be erected because they can be moved more economically, and this a speedier way of getting the married quarters added to those camps. I do not wish to detain the House for any time. I merely join with other Members in welcoming this Bill and the method of raising the necessary money by loan. I should also like to express the hope that it may be possible later to amend the Bill so as to provide the necessary quarters for some of our married people abroad.
  6.13 p.m.
  Mr. Hoy: I want to add a few words of welcome to this Bill and to join in general support of it. I was interested to hear the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) talk of the old types of barracks and the slums which exist today and which the Army are occupying. These have existed for many years, and if by this Bill we can even seek to rectify that position, I am certain that Members in all parts of the House will be grateful. I should not like to cross swords with the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), but I remember visiting the barracks at Abassiyeh, and certainly parts of them left a good deal to be desired. There were parts which I would not like to live in, and I hope that that type of building will be reduced under this Bill.
  A few weeks ago I had the opportunity of visiting the Army manoeuvres in Germany, and in the Sennelager in the Paderborn area, which was also visited by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham, I took the opportunity to talk to the troops about conditions in the Army. There were no general complaints about conditions in the Services, but there was on the question of housing. Regular Service men, including officers, N.C.Os. and other ranks, had one complaint—there was no housing accommodation available for their wives and families. I should like to see provided the type of accommodation which is available in Sennelager. A lot has been said against those who commanded the German troops, but at least they made proper and decent accommodation available for the men under their command.
  The British troops said the only real complaint they had was not only that accommodation was not available in our own country or in Germany, but that when they were sent from Germany to some other theatre in which troops were required, it meant leaving their wives and families behind. That became intolerable from the point of view of family life, and added tremendously to the expenses of the men concerned, because they were expected to find accommodation for their wives and families at home, and they had to try to make suitable arrangements for themselves wherever they went. This was one point of real
  1008
  concern to the men in the Forces, and it was the one thing which would compel those to whom I spoke, to leave the Forces. We cannot overstress that aspect.
  I want to say a word about the contribution which this Bill makes to solving the housing problem. On a previous occasion there was some criticism to the effect that any houses given to the Forces would be subtracted from the general numbers available for the civil population. That is not necessarily so, and while I should like to see the whole housing programme and house production stepped up to the very last limit, I do not think we should divide it into two classes—civilians and Service men. After all, they are all part of the same community.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be better to have an increased allocation of houses and not have the allocation of houses for the Forces deducted from the numbers of civilian houses?
  Mr. Hoy: I do not disagree with that. What we have to think of is what can be obtained, and whether it is suggested that there should be 200 houses or 220 houses it does not really matter. The thing that does count is, how many houses can actually be built.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the same principle applies to houses built for sale and houses built to let?
  Mr. Hoy: I do not think that that has anything to do with the Bill we are discussing. If the Army were dependent on houses to sell for housing accommodation, they would have very little of it. This has been a very amicable Debate, and I should not like an interjection of that kind to upset the harmony. This is a matter of concern for all of us whether we are out of the Forces or in them. I hope the Service Ministers will give consideration to the plea for accommodation for the Services overseas. It is the one thing which would bring happiness to the lives of these men. Along with other hon. Members who have spoken, I should like to give my general approval to the Bill.
  6.18 p.m.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: In welcoming this Bill, I too regret that its scope is not wide enough. It ought to be extended to include the Services overseas. With what has been said by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) I entirely agree, except on one point where he made a comparison with housing conditions before the war. My recollection is that there were more houses available in proportion to the numbers in the Services than there are today. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman voted before the war on the Service Estimates, but a great many of his friends voted against those Estimates and in so doing, voted against the building of married quarters.
  I have only two points to put on the Bill. When these houses are being built I hope they will not be erected in little clumps nor, in the case of the Air Force, on the edge of the airfield. At the beginning of the last war houses had to be evacuated because they were dangerous where they stood. Houses were always built closely together. The married quarters were known as "Harmony Row." I would ask the Ministers responsible to get some real planning into the scheme, so that the houses will be widely dispersed over a fairly large area.
  I also hope that the Air Ministry and the Admiralty will agree about the layout and the design of the houses in their respective Services. It may be that in a few years to come that there will be great integration between the Air Force and the Navy. We all hope that if we have to retain the fighting Services, we shall have one fighting Service. It may be a matter of policy that the Air Force will have to change their airfields, but I should like to feel that these quarters were laid out so that this could be done without inconvenience.
  A lot of money, £40 million, is being voted in the Bill. This has been a very happy Debate, but we have not been told when the building is to start. I should like to know when the bricks and mortar are to be put on the site and when the houses are to be put up. How many are to be built in the next 12 months? How many in the second 12 months? I am afraid that I did not hear the whole
  1010
  of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. A. Henderson: I think that the Minister of Defence indicated during the discussion on the Money Resolution that the figures were 6,500 for the year 1950–51.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I only hope that the figure will be lived up to and perhaps improved upon. After the right hon. and learned Gentleman's visit to the Middle East, I hope that he will be able to devote some of his efforts to this matter before he goes out of office. I welcome the Bill and I want it to be on the Statute Book, but I should like to feel that it is a real Bill and not one introduced for the sake of having an attractive Bill in the next few months. I want to feel that it is a real Bill and that the houses are to go up. I ask the Minister to give us a definite assurance that plans are under way and that the matter is being considered in respect of sites and materials. If I can get that assurance, I shall go home feeling very happy indeed.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Carmichael: I want to make it perfectly plain that I am in complete agreement with all hon. Members who are seeking the very best accommodation for people in the service of the Government. On the Financial Resolution last week, and in the Bill also, all we have is the proposal to find the money. While many hon. Members have discussed pre-war housing conditions and have sought for an improvement at a very early date, we have had no evidence yet of how we are to approach the problem of building houses.
  From my knowledge of previous Housing Bills I think it is customary to give us some indication, first of the understanding which has been come to with the local authorities, then about the method of building, the harnessing of the building labour and the type of buildings we are to erect. Surely the present Bill is sufficiently important for us not merely to discuss taking the money out of the Consolidated Fund but to be offered some practical evidence of how we are to approach the problem of building the houses. Everybody knows that housing is at least No. 2 priority in Britain. I

  1011
  accept the view put forward by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the finding of full employment and the building of industry are priority No. 1. If housing is even priority No. 2, it is nevertheless a very important problem to the people of this country.
  I want to ask the Minister to give us some evidence about the relationship between the responsible authorities and the Defence Forces. Can he tell us how they are coming together to discuss this problem of housing? It is not sufficient for the Minister merely to come here and tell us we are going to build houses in Britain. Surely we should be told that there is some kind of plan for the building of those houses. No housing programme can be dealt with in this country without some kind of approach to the local authorities.
  I want to know the intention of the Minister of Defence and those associated with him in the approach to the local authorities. Is it intended to have an understanding that these houses will be part of the ordinary housing scheme, but specially reserved for the Armed Forces? If members of the Armed Forces are to live in the community there should be no segregation of any kind, with Army houses here and civilian houses there. Have we any plan on those lines?
  Secondly, I want to ask about the labour. It is an extremely important matter. I asked a Question about it fast week, but received very little satisfaction. If these houses were being built abroad—I agree with hon. Members who have pleaded for the Bill to be extended, because if we are sending people abroad, obviously they should get the finest accommodation we can provide—I make bold to say that we should ask the skilled men in the Army to engage in the building. I do not think there can be any doubt about that. We should ask the men in the Forces who have the necessary skill to engage in the erection of houses in addition to undertaking their Army responsibilities. I asked last week what was the Government's attitude to that problem, and there was no answer.
  We are depleting the building industry every week because of conscription. Do not let any hon. Member take me up for having a pacifist attitude on this matter, because that would be quite
  1012
  wrong. The fact is that the number engaged on actual house-building is going down and the people concerned are going into the Armed Forces. Are they to be used to assist in the building programme, apart from their ordinary military duties? If they are not, can we be told why not? It is of the utmost importance. I would make this final observation on this point, that if the civilian population knew that we were decreasing the building industry by putting men into the Army and then not using them to assist in the building of houses for the Army but were actually taking away more men to build Army houses, they would feel that we were making the housing problem even more serious for the civilian population.
  I make no apology for stating again that I represent a city that, even with its present building programme, cannot overtake for the next 20 years the claims of the civilian population, although it has the most deplorable houses that can be found anywhere in Great Britain. I have no desire to aggravate that feeling of discontent, but I think that we shall be bound to aggravate it if we deplete our building forces and do not utilise them to assist in building while they are in the Army I ask to be told what understanding we are to have with the civilian authorities in the building of these houses. Will the houses be built as part of a general scheme for house building in the community? Thirdly, how are we to utilise the labour of the building trade workers who have been transferred into the Army?
  6.29 p.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke: We have had a formidable array of support for the suggestion put forward by my noble friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that the Bill should be widened in its scope. I should like to support the plea that we make special provision for overseas housing. I make this important qualification in the support that has been given to my noble Friend's suggestion. He himself mentioned that there might be financial complications. I certainly would not like to see £40 million, which covers the total expenditure under the Bill, having to include also housing overseas. We must realise that there is plenty of work to be done with the £40 million inside this

  1013
  country without having to disperse it even wider, and therefore, if, as I hope, the Government extend the scope of the Bill, it will also mean increasing the scope of the financial provisions.
  When we were discussing the Money Resolution to this Bill the other day, the Minister of Defence gave the figure of 6,500 houses to be started in the next financial year and 5,000 every year after that. It seems to me that if we are to build all the houses required by the Armed Forces—the Minister of Defence said it was 29,000 to 30,000—and each house costs about £2,000, which I believe to be an approximate figure, we shall be spending £63 million, whereas we are now making provision only for £40 million. I presume that the remainder are to be built within the Service Estimates. I do not know what those who are responsible for these matters have in mind as the total number of houses to be built within the Service Estimates. We have been told quite categorically by the Minister of Defence that there will continue to be a certain amount of building within the Service Estimates, and it seems to me that over the period covered by the Bill the Government ought to be estimating to build about 10,000 houses within the Estimates. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for War will give us an answer on this matter.
  I want to put to the Under-Secretary another point relating to the financial aspect. The Secretary of State for Air did not touch on this matter, but I think he would agree with the Minister of Defence that one of the great benefits which will come from this Bill is that it will mean that if the houses are not required in future for defence purposes, they can be made available to the civilian population. That is highly desirable. There is one aspect which has been overlooked and about which the House ought to know before we part with the Bill, even if the answer cannot be given today. Under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, two rates of Exchequer grant to local authorities are laid down, the general standard amount being £16 10s. and the special standard amount, in respect of houses let to agricultural workers, being £25 10s.
  Probably most of the houses we are planning to build under this Measure will
  1014
  be in rural areas. If so, what will happen when they are offered to local authorities? Will the local authorities be given only the standard amount if they decide to purchase the houses or will they be given the agricultural rate where they are buying houses for the purpose of letting them to agricultural workers? That is an important point for the local authorities. Speaking on the Money Resolution, the Minister of Defence gave an assurance that very close liaison would be kept with the local authorities. I hope that that matter will receive attention and that we may have an answer at a later stage.
  I was interested in what was said by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) and my noble Friend the Member for Horsham about Germany. About a year ago I had an opportunity of visiting another somewhat outlandish spot—Tripolitania—and seeing the conditions in which troops were living there. I sincerely believe that there has been undue hardship there owing to difficulties about married quarters. We must face the fact that wherever our troops go, we must try to make the best possible provision for married quarters. I do not believe that this Bill has the necessary financial capabilities, although I believe that its provisions could be applied to this if the total amount available were increased. That is a Treasury matter and the Under-Secretary cannot be responsible for it, but I hope that every possible pressure will be brought to bear on the Treasury by the Service Departments to see if something can be done to increase the provision from £40 million to, I suggest, something like £60 million so that we can at least get some building done, on the same basis as this building is to be done, for troops overseas.
  6.36 p.m.
  Lieut-Colonel Lipton: The Bill emphasises one thing which many of us have stressed for some time, that one of the best ways in which to ensure an adequate supply of manpower for any Service, undertaking, trade or industry is to provide adequate housing accommodation. I attach more importance to the provision of adequate housing accommodation for men in the Services than I do even to pay and allowances. I am convinced that if we were in a position to tell any married man joining the Services that

  1015
  we could provide him with married quarters, the recruiting problem would be solved.
  We have gone as far as we can reasonably expect to go in regard to pay and allowances—I speak in the broadest possible sense—and I welcome the Bill because it at least makes a specific contribution towards the provision of married quarters which cannot be tampered with by this House, with all due respect to this House, when the Service Estimates come before us each year for consideration. When we are balancing one claim against another, it is so easy to cut expenditure on this very important item of the provision of married quarters.
  I shall not look a gift horse in the mouth and plead for greater expenditure. I am not even going to add such little weight as I can to the appeal which has been made for additional expenditure for the purpose of housing our troops overseas. The need for the Bill was very forcibly brought home to me the other day when one of my constituents, a Regular soldier, came back to this country on embarkation leave after some two years in Germany, where he had been living with his wife and family in what I gather was quite reasonable accommodation. He is to be posted from Germany to Hong Kong and he came back to this country on embarkation leave. His wife and family had to return to this country as well, giving up their accommodation in Germany. There was no easy way of ensuring that his wife and family would be given a home.
  We know what the circumstances are. We know the pressure which is brought to bear on local authorities. This regular soldier had only another two or three years to serve. He felt very strongly and bitterly about this, and told me, "I am not going to report for duty and I am not going to embark for Hong Kong unless I know that before I go on the ship there is a roof over my wife and child." That was the human reaction in one case which came to my notice. When I brought it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, he dealt with the matter most sympathetically and said it would be possible to provide some kind of accommodation for the wife and child in one or other of the married hostels. That is better than nothing, but it is not
  1016
  the same thing as the soldier knowing that he has a home for his wife and child.
  Such a case would be covered by the provisions that we hope will soon be made under this Bill, and I know there must be quite a number of other cases of a similar character, the needs of which will be met in the same way. I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), who raised points which, in my respectful submission, were dealt with by the Minister of Defence at an earlier stage. This Bill merely means that we are allocating a section of the housing accommodation provided in this country at the present time to the specific needs of Service men.
  We should all like to see the global figure of housing accommodation much greater than it is, but hitherto it has not been possible, generally speaking, to persuade local authorities to give very high priority to the needs of Service men over the needs of other people. The attitude of some local authorities has been "As soon as your husband is released from the Forces or comes back to this country and the family is reunited, we will consider your application. Until then, there are other much more urgent and distressing cases than yours." Therefore, without introducing any necessary or unnecessary qualifications or additions or improvements, this Bill is valuable because it is a new method of dealing with an important problem, a method which in the fight of the figures given by the Minister of Defence will provide 6,500 houses in 1950–51 and somewhere in the region of 5,000 houses a year thereafter. That is a good start, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, in this sphere of activity, will not weary in well doing.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I rise only in the hope that I can remove any fears from the minds of His Majesty's Government that the attitude taken or the questions put by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) will be taken too seriously. I feel quite sure that he was alone, and is permanently alone, in this House in putting fears into our minds that we should be filching labour from a declining labour force in the building trade and that, having done that, we should be cutting down the

  1017
  number of houses supplied for the civil population. I do not believe that represents the feeling of the majority of hon. Members.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is a fact.
  Mr. Carmichael: I was merely staling what is a fact, that if we reduce the number of people engaged in building for the civil population, by building for the Army, without using the building labour already in the Army, we are bound to reduce the number of houses built for the civil population because we reduce the number of workers.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member has disclosed the fallacy under which his mind is working. I look upon the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force as part of the population of this country. If they are not housed in houses which will be built for them under this Bill, their families will have to be housed elsewhere. It is the basic fallacy of those who follow the line of thought of the hon. Member for Bridgeton that the moment a man joins His Majesty's Forces, to serve for any term of years, even if he is married and has children he remains segregated from the rest of the population. That is far from being the case. Far from being segregated from the rest of the population, I would say that that man and his wife and family should be right at the top of the tree as regards fair and decent consideration of the way in which they should live.
  I have in my own constituency a case which has called for some time for the kind of help which can be given under this Bill if it is properly used. It concerns the housing of officers and n.c.os. on the permanent staff of the Royal Air Force camp at Locking. Those married officers and n.c.os., with their wives and small children, have been living, not for a few weeks or months but some for several years, in caravans, because they could not find accommodation within reasonable distance of that camp. Others have been living under conditions of overcrowding in the nearest village, so that it is not only the officers, n.c.os. and men, who will be assisted but also the local inhabitants.
  1018
  There is one aspect of the matter which is sometimes forgotten. In the R.A.F., which treats these matters in the most humane manner, actual postings are being affected by the housing problems of married officers. Nothing could be more serious than that an officer, n.c.o. or man should dislike being posted to a station simply because no married quarters are available there. In one sense that is affecting the efficiency of the whole of the Service, quite apart from discouraging recruitment.
  Arising out of that, I hope that we can have some assurance that there will not be long delays in reaching decisions as to which camps are to be permanent and which are to be temporary. A camp which I know has been up and down, first on one side of the seesaw and then on the other. If a camp like that, which is only one of many, is to be under consideration for a long time, it will not benefit, and those who serve in it will not benefit, under the terms of this Bill. It is vitally important that immediate decisions should be taken about the permanency of these camps. It may be that under this Bill prefabricated houses could be erected near certain long-term temporary camps and that more permanent houses could be built nearer to the permanent camps of long standing, but some sort of decisions will have to be taken quickly if some of the most difficult camps in this respect are to be properly dealt with.
  The total number of houses which it is planned to build is only a fleabite in the total housing programme of the country. Therefore, I do not share the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. I believe that the decline in the building labour force has been brought about by the uncertainty of the building programme. I do not say that offensively. The greater the vigour which is devoted to, and the progress obtained in, increasing the numbers of houses, the more we shall attract people into the trade and keep those already in the trade fully occupied. I hope that no excuse will be found for delaying the implementation of the powers which the Bill contains.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Smith: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) into the quarrel which he sought to pick

  1019
  with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) by placing on the speech of the hon. Member an interpretation which was not borne out by my hearing or that. I think, of most hon. Members.
  The Bill is welcome not only in itself, but also for the valuable opportunity which its various stages have provided for a discussion on the general question of the provision of married quarters for the Armed Forces. In particular, it has provided a valuable opportunity for the unanimity of the House to be shown upon the desirability of an extension of the provision of married quarters overseas. I do not intend to embark upon a discussion of the extent to which that provision can properly be brought within the terms of the Bill, but I should like to add my remarks to those of hon. Members on both sides about the importance of the recognition by the Government of the urgent need for securing more married quarters for those of our Forces who are serving in various places overseas.
  An extension of the Bill may not necessarily be the most effective way of achieving that end. If, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) said, the sole obstacle to using the Bill for that more extensive purpose is a Treasury regulation, then I sincerely hope that the Government will make short shrift of that Treasury regulation. Whatever method the Government choose to adopt, however, there can be no doubt that the provision of additional married quarters overseas is a matter of great urgency. Some months ago I received from the War Office the information that at all overseas stations except one there were waiting lists for married quarters. The one exception, I believe, was Bermuda. This is a matter which, as hon. Members on both sides have said, requires urgent attention from the Government. In its present form, however, the Bill deals primarily with the provision of additional married quarters in this country.
  Since I am one of those who desire to see the conscription system brought to an end as soon as possible, I welcome especially the additional provisions which the Bill proposes. There can be no doubt that, as a number of hon. Members have said, the additional accommodation for families which the Bill contemplates will provide a valuable incentive for men to
  1020
  come into the Forces and will be a first-rate aid to the recruitment of Regular Service men.
  Any hon. Member who represents a constituency with large service installations, whether naval, military or Air Force, will echo the remarks the hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield) about the heartbreaking cases, which are by no means infrequent, of young men serving on Regular engagements who have been married perhaps seven or eight years but who, because of the exigencies of war and of post-war service, may not have been able to live a family life for more than 12 months during all that period; and who, because of the shortage of married quarters, are very often, even when stationed in this country, unable to live with their wives. This situation has imposed a very heavy strain upon the families of many men of all three Services. It is very welcome, therefore, that steps are to be taken to improve the provision of married quarters and thereby enable more families to be united.
  The shortage of proper facilities has confronted the Service Ministries with some particularly difficult problems in the last two or three years. It has enforced upon them decisions which were very unpopular and which must have been very unpalatable to the Ministers concerned. I was, however, obliged, after taking up a number of individual cases, to agree that in all the circumstances those decisions were the right ones. I have in mind such steps as that, which has already been referred to, of the provision of hostels for the families of men serving overseas for whom accommodation in married quarters at their overseas stations could not be made available. There have been instances of regiments moving from this country whose men had been in occupation of married quarters and whose families could not accompany them overseas.
  Owing to the shortage of married quarters it has not always been possible for the Army, at any rate, to allow wives to remain in occupation of married quarters when their husbands have gone overseas. It has been necessary, therefore, for these wives, faced already with the deprivation and difficulty which the absence overseas of a husband inevitably entails, to face in addition a journey of

  1021
  a hundred miles or, perhaps, more, and the problem of resettlement away from their friends and, very often, from their relations and all the associations and contacts which they had built up whilst in occupation of their married quarters.
  I hope that as a result of the Bill, when regiments proceed overseas and it is not possible, either immediately or even after an interval, for wives and children to accompany the Service men, that they will at least be enabled, should they so desire, to remain in occupation of their existing married quarters. The wives of Service men so placed have difficult enough problems already without the necessity of the War Office to enforce upon them—and this is a decision which has arisen from necessity and certainly not from any choice of the Service Ministers—the obligation to move to a new home, perhaps a hundred miles or more from the home to which they are accustomed.
  Then there is the further very difficult problem of what the War Office, with their customary gift for choice phrases, term the "irregular occupants of married quarters," men who have occupied married quarters and whose time in the Services has expired but who have not been able to find alternative accommodation. In this direction also the War Office have been faced with difficult and unpalatable decisions. The small group of people who are classed as "irregular occupants" are deserving of particular sympathy. I have no doubt that their problem receives sympathy from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and those associated with him, but the provision of additional housing accommodation will enable my right hon. Friend to treat these cases with even more sympathy.
  I have in mind the particular limited type of case of the widow of a man who dies whilst in the Service. These cases, happily, are not numerous, but again we have the situation of a woman, very often with children, deprived quite suddenly of her husband; and I am sure that it is most repugnant to the War Office for them to have to class such a woman as an irregular occupant of a married quarter. I hope that these additional married quarters which it will be possible to provide will assist the War Office in dealing with some of these difficult problems.
  1022
  The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) raised points of substance, which have already had some discussion, about the relationship with the local authorities. It is of great importance that the Defence Ministers in these matters, in respect of planning, siting, timing, construction and design, should make sure that they are fully in touch with all the appropriate civilian authorities which are handling this housing job—on a much larger scale, of course—on the civilian side. Many married quarters which at the moment are being occupied are, quite frankly, museum pieces, and I hope that under this Bill we shall not only have a more speedy provision of married quarters but that we shall ensure that the high standard of married quarters which are now being constructed in the post-war period is thoroughly maintained and that proper attention is given to the problems of siting, planning and construction.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. John McKay: I agree with the Minister's statement that the housing problem cannot be separated between various sections of the community. It exists in the Forces both in this country and overseas. Throughout the whole of the Forces, as well as. in the civilian population, the housing question creates a tremendous amount of difficulty and trouble for many people.
  I should like to get clear the phraseology of the Bill. The Bill states that its whole purpose is to provide houses for married people in the Forces, and it then goes on to say:
  "… or employed in connection with, the armed forces."
  I should like to emphasise that point, because I am concerned with one section of the population which I think ought to be, and probably is, included in the Bill. I refer to persons serving in the Meteorological Office. I should like to know whether it is clear that those people are brought within the ambit of the Bill. That section is attached to the R.A.F., and I expect that they are covered by this Measure. The troubles of these people are just the same as those in the other Forces. They have just the same difficulties. They constantly have to move about from place to place; they have to get furnished rooms, and they have various other difficulties. My

  1023
  remarks apply also to these people who serve overseas.
  From information that I have received, I believe that there is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction among this body of men because of the housing problem. There is a serious difficulty in getting recruits, and very often when recruits are obtained they leave because of the housing difficulty. So much is this so that people engaged in this activity feel that they are almost the Cinderellas of both the Civil Service and the Forces. While they are a Civil Service body, they are also under the Secretary of State for Air. They feel that insufficient attention is given to them, and I believe that some of them feel that a new Department should be set up particularly for the Meteorological Office. However, I do not wish to go any further into that subject, because it would be out of Order. I conclude by expressing the hope that the difficulties of personnel in the Meteorological Office will be taken into consideration and that something will be done for them.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Chetwynd: I wish to ask one or two important questions and to make a suggestion. I was much impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Charles Smith), and I hope that as a result of his observations his own particular problems in his garrison town will be eased in the not too distant future. Because the Forces are equating their system of financing house building to that of local authorities, I think there are two responsibilities which the Forces must have in mind and which all local authorities now have in mind. The first is that the houses when they are built should be let where the need is greatest. That is a cardinal point with all local authorities. They have their points systems and their systems of allocation.
  I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War what considerations are taken into account by the Service authorities when they are allocating married quarters both to officers and to other ranks. Is there anything which could be equivalent to the housing committee of a local authority to whom the soldier or airman, whoever
  1024
  he is, can make application and can be assured that his case is being dealt with on its merits and that there has been no undue influence or queue jumping by people who happen to have more influence or perhaps a senior position? If my hon. Friend could give me some assurance on that point it would be most helpful.
  Local authorities are empowered to charge a reasonable and economic rent, and I should like my hon. Friend to give me some indication as to how the rents of these new houses will be fixed. Will it be according to rank, no matter what kind of unit of accommodation the applicant has—whether it is a pre-Crimean war one, or one of the very fine modern houses which are now in existence? Or will the rent be fixed not according to rank but according to the type of accommodation which is allocated?
  The demand of the Service Departments for married quarters is going to be irregular all over the country. It is obvious that in a large industrial area the Service Departments will not make much call for married quarters, but in areas such as Catterick, Aldershot and other large military concentrations they are going to make a disproportionate demand for married quarters as against the ordinary civilian population. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) was quite right when he stressed the point that we must be certain of the contact between the military authorities and the civilian authorities in allocating these houses.
  I understand that the civilian needs are met by a regional conference conducted by the Minister of Health, in which all the conflicting demands of local authorities are weighed and then allocations are made. I should imagine that the Service Departments in future will take part in some similar kind of conference in which their demands will be put forward, discussed side by side on their merits with the civilian demands, and an equitable solution arrived at. It is quite clear that in those areas which I have mentioned, where there is this heavy military concentration, in order that justice shall be done both to the military and the local authorities, there must be some increased allocation of houses as against the other areas where there is little demand for married quarters.

  1025
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester raised the question of what is to happen now when the husband is posted away. Is the War Office or the Service Department concerned to continue its present scheme of putting the families into hostels many miles away, or is there some ray of hope that because of these new arrangements families can be left where they are so that when the husband's tour of duty is over, and it is now three years, he will return to his own home and will not have to go on a waiting list somewhere else and make his arrangements all over again. This is a burning problem which has caused great anxiety, and I hope that this Bill will enable it to be solved in a reasonable way.
  On the question of overseas houses, arrangements can be made for them through the usual Estimates. Although it has been urged that such houses should be included in this or some similar Bill, it would be clouding the issue too much if we tried to bring it forward at present. I would rather wait and see what it is proposed to do about overseas housing in this year's Estimates, which will be coming along fairly soon. If we are dissatisfied about the matter we can raise a storm on those Estimates, and I suggest 'that that is a more practical way of tackling the problem.
  I believe that at home we can go much further with conversions. I have seen some of the fine large houses near Alder-shot which have been converted into flats and other accommodation for officers. We can still continue with that under the present Estimates: My final word is to express the hope that these new married quarters will not be built in barracks or anything of that nature, because they will have to revert to the civil population after a time. I hope these houses will be detached or semi-detached where possible. What is more important, I hope that they will not be segregated from the normal housing requirements of the population, but they will be intermixed with ordinary civilian housing so that we shall not look on our military personnel as a class apart, that we shall still regard them as part and parcel of the ordinary population. Above all, I hope that when these houses are built they will be good, well planned and fit to live in.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I should not like it to be thought that the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) was a Scottish voice crying in the wilderness, as suggested by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing). I feel that the hon. Member did my hon. Friend less than justice and neglected entirely the very great housing problem which we have in Scotland, and particularly in Glasgow. We must take that problem into consideration when we consider a Measure like this. I say at once, however, that although I sympathise with, and in many ways support, the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton, I feel that on balance I must support the Bill.
  The point is—do we or do we not need an Army, and if so, have we not a responsibility, when we get young men to join as Regulars, to give them decent housing conditions and security and peace of mind when they are going from place to place and are posted away from home? Anyone who has any knowledge of the present married quarters in salubrious places such as Maryhill Barracks will recognise that they are far from being worthy of this nation, which prides itself on doing so much for its fighting men, and that certainly there are not at present nearly enough of them.
  That state of affairs can be applied to every section of the community, and that is why the feeling arises that this Measure, which we recognise to be an emergency Measure, is only that, and that unless this matter is properly handled and controlled it will cause resentment among all the other sections of the population, because of this division and sub-division of the population into special categories. There are special houses for agricultural workers, special houses for miners who are being moved from one locality to another; we have heard suggested tonight that there should be special houses for meteorological workers, and in. this Bill provision is made for special houses for soldiers.
  It will cause resentment if these houses are to come out of a fixed global number of houses, and that is the point to which I wish to refer, because what has troubled me most of all about this Bill was the admission by the Minister of Defence last

  1027
  week that these houses will not be additional houses but will come out of a fixed global total. The point about the houses for miners and agricultural workers in Scotland is that when the local authority has permission to go ahead with such houses, they are additional to the normal allocation. If the houses with which this Bill deals could be additional to the normal allocation, I do not think there would be anyone in this House who would be prepared to voice any opposition to the Bill.
  I urge the Minister of Defence to do his part, in co-operation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, to build up a labour force, because we are told that that is what limits the number of houses which can be built in Scotland. The Minister can do a certain amount by delaying for a time the call-up of a sufficient number of young building workers to build this additional number of houses in Scotland. If he did that, I think that the critical voices from Scotland would certainly be silenced on that point.
  I do not want to emphasise a point which one or two hon. Members have made, but when these houses are built they must be built in co-operation and close contact with the local authorities. Otherwise we shall have a clash between the local authorities and the Army, and I do not think it desirable that we should have that kind of friction, particularly between those two bodies, which ought to get on quite well together. I repeat that the one point which has troubled all hon. Members for Scottish constituencies is that while we are not concerned about this emergency favouritism for people in the Army, we are concerned that these houses are, at least so far as Scotland is concerned, to come out of a global figure which is already inadequate for ordinary civilian needs. We want these houses to be additional to that global figure.
  7.19 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: During the last Debate that we had on this question, I said that unless the Bill added to the number of houses that are to be provided, it really meant very little. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that it does not mean very much because it does
  1028
  not add to the total number of houses to be built. All that the Bill does is to create yet another priority. All that it means to the person who has been waiting 10 years for a house is that he or she will have to wait another year. That is not very desirable from the point of view of the person who has been waiting for a long time. We have priorities for the miners and for the agricultural workers, and now we are to have priorities for the men in the Forces.
  Lieut-Colonel Hamilton: Is there any other trade or profession in which a man is compelled to go very often to distant stations abroad where he cannot have his family with him?
  Mr. Willis: The soldier is at least employed. There are many people in Scotland today who cannot get employment, because they cannot go to a district and get a house in which to live. Who is to decide what is a priority occupation today? I should have thought that a man who was working in the export industry and earning dollars was equally deserving of priority, because our bread and butter depend upon him.
  I have every sympathy with the men in the Services; in fact, many of my best friends are serving people; but we have this problem that we are doing something for the Service men only at the expense of the civilian population. This is exceedingly hard in Scotland, with the housing problem which confronts us today. It is much harder in Scotland than in England. I often think that the Englishman does not realise to the full just what that problem is. It is true to say that as a result of it we have one of the highest tuberculosis rates in Europe. We have people in Scotland who are living in far worse conditions than some soldiers are living today. We have people who are seeing the health of their children undermined. There are people in my constituency who in some cases attribute the early death of their children to the housing conditions in which they have to live. Now I have to go back and say to them, "I am sorry, but you will have to wait a little longer for a house, because the soldier must get a house." That is exceedingly difficult.
  I agree that we need houses for soldiers, but this is not the way to meet that need. This is a piece of financial

  1029
  jugglery, and that is all. It does not add a single house. The way in which the situation could be met would be by building houses additional to the existing programme. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could convey to his right hon. Friend the possibility of using builders in the Forces to build their own houses. We are informed that in Scotland it is not the lack of materials which is stopping the building of houses, but the lack of labour. Much of that labour is in the Forces. Could not the builders in the Army be used to build houses for the Army so that we should not take from our present scanty labour force? That would be a much better way to tackle the problem.
  I can hardly welcome this Bill. I sympathise with the men in the Services who require accommodation, but that is as far as I can go. I can only ask the Minister to consider the possibility which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock suggested of making the houses additional to the existing programme.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The last three speeches have brought an air of reality into a rather well-meaning but confusing Debate. All hon. Members who have spoken have agreed that the married soldier is just as much entitled as any other person to a roof above his head and a decent home. But that is not the object of this Bill. As the hon. Member for South Edinburgh has said, it is a pure piece of financial jugglery.
  Sir William Darling: On a point of Order. I am the Member for South Edinburgh, and I used no such words.
  Mr. Hughes: I apologise to the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) and to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). Are the Government really serious in saying that, at this time of day, in the year 1949, we need new powers to build married quarters for the Services? The Government have all the powers already. They have had all the money. We have given it to them. Nobody has refused them a penny for the last four years. All that this Bill provides is a new method of paying the bill. The cost is to be spread over 60 years in the same way as municipal houses have hitherto been built.
  1030
  Under previous arrangements the Services have come forward and said, "Here is what we require for married quarters," and the house has unhesitatingly given them every pound and every penny for which they asked. I submit that it is humbug to make the excuse that this is a Bill for speeding up the provision of married quarters for Service men. All that it does is to spread the cost over 60 years. That is not building one more house for a soldier or a sailor or an airman.
  The Secretary of State for Air put forward a rather unconvincing argument that this was meant as a stimulus to recruiting. The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) followed that up, and rather simplified it, by saying that if houses were available for people who wished to join the Forces, the recruiting problem would be solved. There is something in that argument, but it is not quite so simple as that. It does not follow that a recruit joining the Forces is automatically given a house. I understand that the houses are for the long-period Servicemen who are in key positions. I have similar cases in my own constituency and in the adjoining town. We do not automatically give the soldier a house under this Bill; so there is no stimulus to recruiting. If we are honest with the soldier we say to him, "You may get a house, or"—as the Minister of Defence said—" you may have to wait 10 years for a house."
  I submit that the soldiers, sailors or airmen at present serving in the ranks and who have been in for five, six, eight or ten years will be more entitled to a house than the new soldier who enlists. We shall not say to the airman, "Join the Air Force and you will get a house the day after tomorrow." The man who joins the Services today will have to wait. It is the same problem as we have to face with regard to civilians. There is absolutely no prospect in civilian life for the newcomer on the housing list. He may have to wait 10, 15 or 20 years. We are wanting recruits by hundreds of thousands for the Army, and the maximum number of houses we are likely to get in 10 years is 30,000. So there is not much in the argument advanced by the Secretary of State for Air.
  From the financial point of view, it is more sensible to spread the capital cost

  1031
  over 60 years. I have been wondering how the Services have got away with it before, because the local authorities have long adopted this manner of paying their interest and their sinking fund. Under the present arrangement there will be a smaller amount allocated in the Defence Estimates. The Defence Ministers will say, "Look what good boys we are. Look how we have economised, and look at the contribution we have made to national recovery." But it is illusory.
  I suggest to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who I know feels very keenly on this question, that he should support those of us who argue that if we want to get increased housing accommodation for the Services, the first thing to do—as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh—is to use the labour force in the Services. Yesterday I obtained some new figures which emphasise this point. I put a Question to the Minister of Works:
  "… how many men were employed on building married quarters for the Forces in October; and how many on other building works for the Forces."
  He replied:
  "At the end of October it is estimated that 5,300 building workers were employed on building married quarters for the Forces … "
  only 5,300—-
  "… and that 27,100 building workers were engaged on other building work …"
  Earl Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman called me into question in this matter in a perfectly friendly way, I would point out that it seems to have escaped his notice and that of his hon. Friends that, though it may appear strange, it is a fact that men are put into the Services to learn to defend their country and not to build houses.
  Mr. Hughes: I will proceed to show presently how the noble Lord is in a dilemma. Let me finish the statistical evidence. The answer continued:
  "… 27,100 building workers were engaged on other building work for the Service Departments, of whom 13,100 were in the direct employment of the Service Departments These figures do not include any Service personnel engaged on building work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1949; Vol. 470. c. 194.]
  The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) rightly
  1032
  stressed that the last thing in which the Service chiefs have been interested in the past is married quarters for soldiers.
  Sir G. Jeffreys: The hon Gentleman misunderstood me entirely. I said that the most difficult thing for a commander to get approved, not by the Service chiefs but by the Treasury and the finance branch of the War Office, was any provision for building of any kind.
  Mr. Hughes: That amounts to the same thing. Building is the very reverse of first priority. When any economy is to be brought about, there is a cut in building, which includes married quarters. I submit that in these figures we have got precisely the same process. There are only 5,300 building workers engaged in building married quarters for the Forces. All sections of the House agree that those quarters are necessary. There are 27,100 building workers doing other kinds of work. If one asks what these 27,100 building workers are doing—which I am sure is a point of interest to the House—down comes the iron curtain and one is told, "You cannot be told that for reasons of security."
  I suggest that if the Ministers concerned are to carry out the desire of the House and get married quarters built, they will have to do it in other ways than by juggling over the period of 60 years. They must get the labour and the materials. I was disappointed at the speech, presumably made on behalf of the Government, by the Minister of Defence. I am perpetually arguing that building workers would be doing more useful service to the Forces and to the community if they—the plumber, the plasterer and the bricklayer—were using their skill and experience in the building of houses and married quarters. I submit to the noble Lord that logically, if he wants married quarters, he should agree with that proposal.
  I do not agree with the noble Lord when he wants this Bill to apply overseas. I read with interest the remarks of the Secretary of State for War, to whom the noble Lord referred. The Secretary of State for War need not have gone to the Suez Canal to find bad housing conditions. He need only have gone to the Forth and Clyde Canal, the Manchester Canal or the Birmingham Canal. He would discover bad housing

  1033
  conditions there. The noble Lord said that we should build houses overseas. One hon. Member even went so far as to suggest that we should build houses in Hong Kong. I do not think that would be a very popular item in any appeal from any party.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Why not?
  Mr. Hughes: Because there are plenty of establishments in Hong Kong—luxury hotels and buildings—which could be taken over first. Another reason is that from the point of view of national economy it would be far cheaper to bring the soldiers home than to build houses for them over there.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in Hong Kong there are only two hotels and that they earn valuable dollars for this country?
  Mr. Hughes: My information is not the same as that of the noble Lord's. He has forgotten the priority. I can hardly conceive that in a place like Hong Kong there are only two hotels.
  Earl Winterton: If the hon. Gentleman was referring to me, I would say that various members of the Forces, not all of whom are Tories—some are Socialists—would be most interested to learn that this representative of the Labour Party wishes not to see them provided with houses overseas. Men separated from their wives will like the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hughes: I think that the people in the Services will listen to me. I am far more popular with the Forces than the noble Lord thinks. I am sure that if a plebiscite were taken in Hong Kong asking the men whether they would prefer to remain there or go home and join their wives, the overwhelming majority would be on the side of the person who is in favour of bringing them home. This Bill is designed to build houses, and the interest and sinking fund are planned over 60 years. Do hon. Members think that we shall be in Hong Kong for 60 years? Do they think that we shall be in Hong Kong in the year 2,010—the last of the 60 years?
  I submit that if hon. Members are interested in the housing conditions east of Suez or west of Suez, or in the other outposts of the Empire which hitherto they have kept by military force and some of which fortunately we have had
  1034
  to abandon, they will find in these places buildings that can be temporarily taken over as billets. We should use these places as billets. When we are faced with a dollar crisis and imminent bankruptcy, we should not talk about building permanent houses overseas for married soldiers.
  Sir G. Jeffreys: Has the hon. Gentleman ever been to any of these places east of Suez—Hong Kong and the rest?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I have not been to Hong Kong, and I have no intention of going to Hong Kong. I am more likely to go to Sing Sing. But I have been in Germany and I know that there the problem was solved by billeting. I do not think that the generals in Germany have had any reason to complain about the billets they have had. If there is an urgent need to house families in married quarters in this country, I suggest that we have not yet exhausted our billeting arrangements. I know a little about this, because I had an officer billeted on me during the war.
  Earl Winterton: Poor officer!
  Mr. Hughes: I learned a lot of military information: it was splendid for his morale.
  In this country, have we exhausted the possibilities of billeting even now? Within two miles of this House, I know a very big building, which I will not name because I do not want to hurt the feelings of the noble Lord, and which could be used for married quarters. [Interruption.] I am not referring to the Savoy. If I am pressed, I will mention it, but it is one of the Royal palaces. I do not see any reason—
  Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that Buckingham Palace should be requisitioned. Surely, it is not in Order to bring into this Debate such a reference to the Crown?
  Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the observation, but, as a matter of fact, the Debate is going very wide, and I think we might get back to the Bill.
  Mr. Hughes: I agree, Mr. Speaker, but I did not mention Buckingham Palace, though I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had better withdraw that, because it is getting too near to the Crown.
  Mr. Hughes: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if I have said anything against the Rules of the House, or against the feelings of the noble Lord—
  Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. It is not my feelings with which I am concerned, but the position of the Crown. The hon. Gentleman made a wounding reference to Buckingham Palace and has been ordered by you, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw it. It has nothing whatever to do with me.
  Mr. Hughes: If I made a wounding reference to anybody, I withdraw it. I was merely taking up a remark of the noble Lord, but I have no wish to hurt anybody's feelings in this respect.
  I merely suggest that, if the Government are keen about solving this problem of married quarters, they should use these powers of billeting, and that in doing so, they would ease the problem of the civilian population. The civilian population of our country are looking upon every Bill which concerns housing with great anxiety and with great envy. Those of us who speak for Scottish constituencies—and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) was the first who spoke about this—know of places where people are appallingly housed and we have in our constituencies cases where there are eight or nine persons of mixed sexes in one room. We see the possibility of a home for everybody receding and receding and that colours our outlook. We believe that these views should be expressed and we hope the time will come in this country when it will be said that the father of every family, whether serving in uniform or not, is entitled to receive what is needed by every person in a civilised society—a home for his wife and children.
  7.43 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): Throughout this Debate, which has, as you, Mr. Speaker, have just pointed out, ranged fairly wide, there has been general recognition of the value and importance of this Bill, a Bill which, despite the speech to which we have just listened, will have the effect of causing us to reach in some five years our objective of a figure of married quarters which otherwise would have taken some 10 years to reach. As to the suggestion of its being a piece of financial
  1036
  jugglery, let us ask any civilian local authority which at present finances its housing operations in this same way whether it regards the difference between doing that and being compelled to meet that expenditure out of current revenue merely as an arrangement of financial jugglery.
  There has been a constant danger going back for many years, that the amount proposed for Service housing is one of the things which hon. Members have tried repeatedly to whittle down in the Estimates. The effect of this Bill is to safeguard an increase, and that is why we can ensure that it will provide an increased number of houses for the Service population. That will be of assistance to Regular recruiting, it will assist in the question of the proper posting of men, and—and this is a point upon which I think we all feel keenly, and which has been emphasised by my hon. Friends the Members for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and Colchester (Mr. Charles Smith)—it will as time goes by steadily relieve the War Office of the necessity of making decisions with regard to sending what are known as "grass widows" into family hostels.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) made reference to that last problem, but of course it does not follow that, shortly after the passage of this Bill, we shall be able to make an immediate revision of our policy with regard to the wives and families of Service men overseas. We must still regard as first priority the using of married quarters to unite a Service family, but with every additional married quarter that is provided the possibility of being able to solve this problem of the so-called "grass widow" more reasonably than we are able to solve it at present improves.
  The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) and many other hon. Members laid great stress on the position of Service married quarters overseas. I should not wish to dispute with them, and if I did wish to do so I could not, the urgency and seriousness of the married quarters position in many of the overseas Commands, but I would invite their attention to this problem, so far as this Bill is concerned. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke)

  1037
  expressed what is I think the feeling of many hon. Members when he said that he did not consider that the £40 million provided for in this Bill would meet both overseas and home needs. Therefore, if this Bill were to extend to overseas theatres, we should have to go outside the terms of the Financial Resolution to which this House has already agreed.
  There is, too, a further point that, even if this obstacle could be overcome, which could not lightly be done, we should be facing something quite different from the nature of this Bill, which is based on an analogy between the provision of Service married quarters and the financing of civilian housing. Consequently, the arrangement has been made that the houses to be provided under this Bill should be in such places and of such a nature that if, at any time, the Services cease to use them, they would be suitable for use as civilian housing.
  If we were to go beyond that, as we should if we tried to bring in overseas housing, we should be considering a different order of Measure altogether, which is why I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees was right when he suggested that hon. Members who are concerned about married quarters overseas will have an opportunity on the Estimates of expressing themselves very vigorously on whatever provision is there made, but to try to do it in this Bill, quite apart from the procedural difficulty about the Financial Resolution, would upset the whole character of the Bill—
  Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has already half persuaded me on this point, but I should like to ask if he can give some sort of assurance that it will be possible to accelerate, under the ordinary Service Estimates, the provision of houses where they are notoriously needed, such as at Fayid?
  Mr. Stewart: I could not answer that question with a definite affirmative at this stage. I feel that, important as is this problem of married quarters overseas, what we should be doing if we tried to extend the terms of this Bill to that purpose would be something quite different.
  Mr. Lipson: Would my hon. Friend make representations to the Minister of Defence to ascertain if he will consider bringing in another Bill which would
  1038
  apply the same principle? The great value of this Bill is that it stands alone, with no effect upon the Estimates.
  Mr. Stewart: I should have added, and I intended to do so, that hon. Members may be assured that the Government will be studying very carefully what has been said in the Debate on the problem of married quarters overseas. I must confess quite frankly—and I think this was the opinion of a number of hon. Members interested in this Bill—that I did not expect it to give rise to a very long Debate, and one of the significant things in it has been the great emphasis which hon. Members in all parts of the House have laid on this particular problem.
  Returning to the problem of the provision of married quarters in the United Kingdom, which is the express purpose of the Bill, I wish to comment on some points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael). They were both concerned with problems of planning and location. On location, I might perhaps say at once that hon. Members will realise that this Bill can only apply to what are known as "approved quarters"; they have to be quarters so allocated that they can, if necessary, be used at some possible future date for civilian housing. That is a big pre-condition which goes a long way to answering the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield.
  With regard to planning and actual building, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton felt that more should have been said about what was intended on these lines, and I think he also mentioned the type of buildings to be put up. I think that the reason why the terms of this Bill are purely financial is because all the other apparatus is there. In the Service Departments the decisions have already been taken as to the type of quarters to be provided, and gratifying reference was made by one hon. Member to the quality of Service building in the years since the war. Further, it is already the regular practice, when any of the Service Departments are building, for them to consult on planning matters with the local authorities and with the Ministries of the central Government affected, notably the Ministries of Town and Country Planning, Education, and

  1039
  Agriculture. That is already recognised and accepted procedure. When the planning stage is over and one comes to the question of actual permission to start building, there, again, the principal housing officer of the region, the representative of the Ministry of Health, considers the applications from the Service Departments together with all other applications for permission to start building in that area. Therefore, all that machinery is there already, and is not altered by this Bill.
  It is true, of course, that one effect of this Bill will be that the Service Departments will be coming forward with somewhat larger bids, and the problem of the reconciliation of the different requests by the regional officer of the Ministry of Health will in some areas, therefore, be a more difficult one than before. But I am bound to say that I think that the question of difficulty over the supply of labour—which is really the only point on which any difficulty could arise—has been over-estimated. Hon. Members should bear in mind that although this Bill envisages what will be a very great increase in married quarters from the Army point of view, it deals with only a very small percentage of the total provision of housing in this country. That is why I am bound to say that I think hon. Members are tending to exaggerate the nature of that problem.
  I ought perhaps to add that in some cases, more particularly where the houses to be built are of a non-traditional type, it may be possible in some localities—I cannot say more than "may" at this stage—to deal with the difficulty by using labour that comes in from elsewhere. That is one expedient by which the particular needs of the Services in certain areas can be met, although, of course, it would not be one of universal application, and it would be rash to prophesy how far it will be a solution of this labour difficulty.
  In general, I wish to assure my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgeton, Stockton-on-Tees, and for Colchester, all of whom were concerned with this problem, that from the very inception of this scheme we realised the very great importance of the closest co-operation with the local authorities and with the Ministry of Health if this scheme was to become effective and if what was planned and intended was really to turn
  1040
  into bricks and mortar. We shall see that the administrative arrangements between the Service Departments, the other Government Departments concerned and the local authorities are of such a character that the programme is pressed on with, and that the needs and requirements of local authorities are given proper consideration.
  I will now refer to one or two points—important, but perhaps of lesser detail—raised by other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) raised a precise and detailed point affecting the Navy. I am assured that the Admiralty both have given and will still give priority to the Naval Air Service in respect of the provision of married quarters, which was, I think, the point on which my hon. Friend wished to be assured. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely raised a point about figures to which the answer is that the figure of 5,000 mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence includes both what will be built with the help of this loan and what will be built by ordinary financial procedure. That. I believe, was the point he wished to get clear.
  In that connection, I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to the fact that if it had really been the intention of the Minister of Defence or of any Member of the Government to deceive the House as to the real size of the Estimates, then, indeed, they would very seriously have underestimated the perspicacity and ingenuity both of my hon. Friend and, indeed, of almost everybody in the House, because it has been clear from the start that in future the Service Estimates will inform Parliament of the total amount of married quarters to be built, both under this loan and under the ordinary financial procedure.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Surely, it would make a difference in the size of the Defence Estimates if this sum were spread over 20, 40 or for 60 years mentioned in the Bill?
  Mr. Stewart: It is true that if we were going to build this number of married quarters without this loan it would make a difference, but my point is that anyone looking at the Service Estimates will immediately see that there is this special

  1041
  item. If after having seen it, anyone is not prepared to go a little further and work out for himself the total amount being spent on Service needs, I really do not think we can bother further about it. There will be no deception in this matter.
  The other point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely was the financial position of local authorities who take over these quarters when they become superfluous to Service needs. May I put this to him? Is he not really looking a great deal too far ahead? We are most anxious to get on with the building of these quarters, but, after all, they are not built yet. I do not think that at this stage we can answer questions with regard to the financial arrangements of the local authorities at a time when these quarters have not only been built, but when they have been used by the Service Departments and when something has occurred to cause those Departments to require them no longer, and when, therefore, they become available to the local authorities. We do not know what changes might occur between now and such a time in the housing position or in housing legislation, or what changes may have occurred in the powers and duties of local authorities. I think that we should be binding the future much too much if we attempted to answer that question.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I quite agree that generally that would be true, but does the hon. Gentleman realise that, particularly as far as the Air Force are concerned, if they decide to start some buildings somewhere near an airfield which then becomes redundant, those houses will become useless to the Service and may be allowed to go to the local authorities far sooner than the hon. Gentleman indicates?
  Mr. Stewart: Before we finish with this Bill, I will consider if a more definite reply can be given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, although, for the reasons I have given, I think that doubtful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walls-end (Mr. McKay) pleaded the cause of the men in the Meteorological Service, but I am afraid they would not be covered by this Bill. I only hope that another more favourable occasion will arise when he will be able to put forward their cause. The phrase in the preamble referring to those connected with the Armed Forces
  1042
  refers to the War Department Constabulary and certain key civilians, for whom we are required to make provision.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees pursued the analogy of civilian housing and asked about the method of allocation and the rents chargeable. In general, it is the practice for Commands, whether they use the actual phrase or not, to have what is in fact a points system which allows for all the relevant factors to be brought into consideration in determining the waiting list for such married quarters as are available at any particular place and how that list should be compiled. It is always possible for any soldier to have explained to him both the principle on which the list is compiled and his position on it.
  In regard to rent, the ideal at which we would aim is that rank, type of quarter and rent should all be connected, and the faster we are able to go in the provision of an adequate number of married quarters the more shall we be able to reach towards that position. At present we have to make certain deviations from that where quarters are occupied by men of ranks who do not normally occupy quarters of that kind and where men are occupying sub-standard accommodation. but the faster progress is made the more we shall free ourselves from those complications.
  I wish to call the attention of the House to one general consideration, the way in which this housing provision is linked with the whole problem of civilian housing—a point which was not fully appreciated, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) or my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). At present many of the families of Service men who would be very glad indeed to occupy married quarters are occupying civilian accommodation and, as we provide the married quarters for them, they will vacate premises which will then become available for occupation by civilians. That will happen in a very great many cases and it is one of the reasons for regarding this as a contribution, not only to the particular problem of the Services, but to the civilian problem as well and it is part of the justification for the fact that this 5,000 a year comes out of and must come out of the total allocation for the building of houses.

  1043
  The hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield) laid stress on that and asked if, as a matter of reciprocity, we could make service camps available. As I pointed out in the House a little time ago, we have done that on a great many occasions and if in any locality, in the opinion of any hon. Member, there is a camp which we are not using and which could be properly handed over to the civilian authority, I should be very glad to listen to any representations about it. The hon. and learned Member also mentioned parts of camps, but he will appreciate that that is administratively a much more difficult problem than handing over a whole camp.
  Reference has been made to priority. May I draw the attention of the House to these figures? Since the end of the war some 570,000 permanent houses have been constructed and 3,000 Service married quarters have been constructed. The reasons for that comparatively slow rate were fully explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air at the beginning of this Debate. It is not a reproach to the Government that the figure is so low, but it is low, about half of 1 per cent. of the total, whereas, if the Services had what one could regard as a fair share, probably it would be between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent., instead of one half of 1 per cent.
  If we are able to build as we hope, it will be no more than a remedy for that falling behind. We are not granting a priority but, to coin a phrase, remedying a posteriority in the matter of housing in the years since the end of the war. If I may borrow a phrase from the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), we are at last showing that we are making a proper estimate of the value of the men in the Services.
  Mr. Shurmer: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask whether he would consider the question of direct labour in the Forces so as not to draw away building labour from building contractors in districts where much housing is needed?

  ELECTORAL REGISTERS BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Clauses 1, 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4. —(SHORT TITLE, CONSTRUCTION, CITATION AND REPEAL)
  8.5 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, to leave out from the first "The," to "are," in line 23, and to insert:
  "enactments mentioned in the first and second columns of the Schedule to this Act (Enactments Repealed)."
  Perhaps I may explain this Amendment and the Amendment which follows, in line 23, to leave out "second," and to insert "third," and the proposed new Schedule, together. It has been necessary to introduce these Amendments at this stage owing to the fact that the consolidating Act of 1949 was not yet an Act when this Bill was introduced, but received the Royal Assent in the course of last week.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 23, leave out "second," and insert "third."—[Mr. Younger.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  New Clause.— (PROVISION FOR ELECTORS COMING OF FULL AGE AFTER THE QUALIFYING DATE.)
  Section one of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, shall be amended as follows:
  (1) In subsection (1) of section one for the words "subsection (2)," there shall be substituted the words "subsections (2) and (4)."
  (2) At the end of subsection (3) of section one, there shall be inserted the following subsection:
  "(4) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, persons who were of an age of twenty years and six months or upwards on the qualifying date and are otherwise qualified in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, shall be entitled to vote as electors;
  Provided that a person shall not be entitled to vote as an elector in any constituency by virtue of this subsection unless registered there in the supplementary register of parliamentary electors to be used at that election.

  1045
  (b) Provision may be made by regulation for the issue of such supplementary register, provided that such regulations shall not provide for the issue of more than one supplementary register in each constituency in each year or for any supplementary register to be published within six months of the last date for publication of the register."—[Mr. Bing.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Bing: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This is a modest attempt to try to do something for the 600,000 people who may be disfranchised by this Measure. As the law stands, there are perhaps 600,000 young people who, under certain circumstances, would be able to vote, but would not be able to vote after we have passed this Measure if a Parliamentary election fell at the most disadvantageous time for them. I have tried to suggest to the Committee a possible means by which we can remedy this injustice without additional expense.
  In moving the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that in a great many cases the Bill would not inflict any hardship. That is quite true. In all other cases everyone will be on the register somewhere. It may well be that they have moved from their address and that they have difficulty in voting. It may well be that there is some advantage to the party which has the more money and which is, therefore, able to trace absent voters up and down the country. But the only people who will not be on the register at all are these young people.
  This is not really a party matter. It might possibly be said that if the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) had had a vote at 21 we might have secured his support for this side of the House. Those of us who studied his career know what was his political position at 21. But I am not putting this forward in any party spirit. What I am suggesting to the Under-Secretary is that, at any rate, he might accept this new Clause as a modest hint of what may possibly be done in another place.
  What we are attempting to do by this Bill is to save in two ways—in the cost of the canvass and in the cost of printing. What I am suggesting, as I think my hon. Friend will agree, would involve no extra
  1046
  cost whatsoever so far as the canvass is concerned. It would involve only an infinitesimal extra amount in the cost of printing, but even supposing that there was an extra cost in the canvass in putting these additional names on the register, and supposing it were proportionate to the cost of compiling the whole register, then, according to my calculation, the extra cost would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £15,000. Therefore, as a result of possibly enfranchising up to 600,000 young people, the total saving by this Measure instead of being, as we hope, £800,000, would be £785,000. If anything on these lines is possible then that loss of saving is worth while in order to give young people the vote.
  There is no doubt at all that the possession of the vote gives people some incentive and some feeling that they have a stake in the country. As the law will stand when we have made the alterations proposed in the Bill, a person who is not 21 on 20th October in England or on 1st December in Scotland may not be entitled to vote until he is 22 years and three months of age. What I suggest to the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary is this: when, on 20th November, a canvass is made, the local authority should have the power to collect not only the names of the people who are 21, but also the names of the people who are 20 years and six months of age or upwards. They should put those names into a separate compartment, as it were, and six months later should issue a special list bearing those names. When that list is issued, those people should be entitled to vote. If they leave it for six months obviously everyone on the list will be 21 years of age.
  There would be very little extra cost and, I submit, very little administrative difficulty in doing that. It is already done in regard to the Service Vote because there the Service man can make a Service declaration even though he is not 21. There seems no logical reason why we should not allow someone who may be doing just as important a job in civil life to make the same sort of declaration. I know it may be said that it was never done before, that previously these young people have always lost the vote, but, I do not think it is a particularly good argument that we should disfranchise young people because they have ' always been

  1047
  disfranchised by other Governments previously. I hope it will be possible, when we make these alterations, that in some such simple way as that I have attempted to put forward in this new Clause we may at any rate attempt to see that the young people do not lose their votes in future elections.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate the purpose for which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has put forward this new Clause, and the class for which he seeks to make provision is certainly a numerous one. I was rather surprised to hear that it is as numerous as the figure he gave, but it certainly is a numerous class.
  I think perhaps he has under-estimated the importance of the change which he is proposing in our procedure. At one time he said that these people who were under 21 on the qualifying date were the only people who will not be on the register, but I do not think that is correct. It has unfortunately always been the case that there have been a number of people whose qualifications on the date of the poll are quite all right but who are not on the register because they were not qualified on the qualifying date, which was some months earlier. Many of these, of course, are these people who have become 21 between the qualifying date and the date of the election, but there are also other categories. There are, for instance, the people who for one reason or another did not have a residential qualification at the time of the qualifying date, possibly because they were abroad.
  It is only a very limited class of person who, even under the Act of 1948, will be able to vote despite the fact that they are abroad. All those people who may have come back and acquired a residential qualification between the qualifying date and the polling date would be in the same position as that of the class which my hon. Friend seeks to benefit. The same thing would happen for the pretty numerous class of people who become naturalised in the same period. I am afraid I have not the up-to-date figure in my head, but at one time it was estimated that over 1,000—in fact something like 1,500—a month were being naturalised, and they would be in the same position.
  1048
  My right hon. Friend does not feel it would be appropriate in this Bill to introduce what is, in effect, a very considerable change in respect of this class. As I said on Second Reading of this Bill, it has the very limited purpose of trying to save some labour and money by reducing the number of registers in a year from two to one. If the change suggested by my hon. Friend were to be introduced at all it should, of course, foe done on a much more comprehensive basis, but I think there is no doubt that if one did, it would go some distance at least to defeating the object of this Bill, which is to simplify procedure and to reduce the costs involved in compiling more than one register. As my hon. Friend recognises in his new Clause, I think, there would be the need for a supplementary register. I am not quite sure how one would check that unless there was to be a supplementary canvass of some kind to check the declarations which had been put in some considerable time before—some six months before.
  Mr. Bing: Perhaps I did not make it quite clear, but the people who became 21 would be in no worse position than the other people who were on the register. There is no supplementary checking to see, after six months, that people have not left their qualifying address. People who became 21 would merely be registered at the address at which they were living when 20 years six months of age and upwards, so they would be in exactly the same position as anybody else on the register.
  Mr. Younger: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I am not quite sure that it could be accepted quite so simply. If we are to put on the supplementary register persons who in fact did not qualify at the time of the qualifying date, so as to say that they should be accepted as having the vote on some subsequent date, without having any supplementary check, that seems to me no unimportant suggestion and it is not quite so simple, automatic and harmless as my hon. Friend seems to suggest.
  I do not know where my hon. Friend got the figure of £15,000 which, I think, he suggested. I know his great ingenuity in research and I have no doubt that he has collected a large number of figures, but I am afraid I cannot accept that the

  1049
  extra cost or the amount of additional labour which would be made necessary by this new Clause is as inconsiderable as the hon. Member suggests. I suggest that this is not a Clause which can properly be introduced in a Bill whose whole purpose is to simplify the procedure and to avoid involving the registration authorities in any work other than that required for the compilation of one register a year. This would be singling out one class of people, although I admit it is a numerically large class, which in the past has always found itself in the position of not having a vote on the polling date because qualification has come after the qualifying date.
  Mr. Austin: It seems to me that my hon. Friend did not do justice to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). The Under-Secretary paid tribute to the talents and research powers of my hon. Friend, but he disputed certain figures he gave. My hon. Friend put the cost at £15,000, but what the Under-Secretary did not dispute, although he expressed his surprise, was the total figure advanced by my hon. Friend of those who will be disfranchised. I should like to know whether it is a fact that 600,000 people are to be disfranchised.
  Mr. Younger: I cannot accept the figure, nor am I denying it. My hon. Friend has put it in a misleading way by saying that they are disfranchised. They are not disfranchised but are in the position they have always been in, and other classes have been in, namely, that they have not qualified on the qualifying date and are unable, therefore, to vote on the polling date.
  Mr. Austin: The fact is that they are disfranchised, and I do not see why I should retreat from that phrase.
  Mr. Bing: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain the figure. I reckon that there are 1,200,000 people in the 21's over a period of 15 months, which is the period from the qualifying date to the final date on which the register is valid, if it comes out once a year. If it comes out in only six months, we obviously have to cut the figure by half, which gives that number.
  Mr. Austin: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that interesting informa-
  1050
  tion. With the greatest respect, I consider that it should not have been given to this Committee but to the Electoral Registration Committee. My hon. Friend ought to have made that contribution to that committee, because had they known that so many people were to be disfranchised their findings might have been entirely different. If they have not considered the total number who were to be affected, there has been some neglect of their duties. One cannot be final on this point, but surely it is a very important matter when such a large body of people are deprived of a vote.
  One of the privileges every citizen has is a vote, unless he is a lunatic, a peer, a bankrupt or a convict, but owing to a serious omission, simply because these young people are unable to be put on the register, this large class is to be deprived of a vote. A case could be made for the inclusion of those who are over 18 on the electoral register. The young people face up to their responsibilities as citizens these days, both in the field of industry and in the Armed Forces.
  I will not pursue that further because I should be out of Order if I did so, but I put it to the Under-Secretary that my hon. Friend has made up an excellent case for the Home Office or my hon. Friend to reconsider this matter, even at this late stage, and to face up to the administrative difficulties. If necessary, my hon. Friend, who is well known for his talents in research, may be able to provide the machinery to enable these young people to be put on the register.
  Mr. John Paton: I should like to say a few words about the argument put forward by the Under-Secretary in rejecting this Clause. He seems to base his objections on three grounds; first, that the Clause is important, secondly, that it does not cover all the possible sections of the community who may be excluded, and, thirdly, that this Clause should not in any event be moved into a Bill of this kind. The argument that the Clause is important does not seem to me to be a logical argument. I should have thought the bearing of that argument, if it has any bearing at all, was in favour of the Clause.
  The second argument, that we cannot cover every possible class of persons who may be excluded, by one sort of chance

  1051
  or another, from the electoral register and that therefore we should exclude this very large number of persons who could be included, seems to me to be very inconsistent and utterly lacking in logic. If it is an evil that people are excluded by circumstances from the register, the sooner we limit that evil the better. Surely, when we have a Clause of this kind which suggests that a numerous body of citizens can be brought in, it is a thoroughly sound thing to do.
  The third point which the Under-Secretary made was that he did not think this Clause should be brought forward on a Bill of this kind. But, it is precisely out of this Bill that the situation envisaged by the Clause arises. It would be utterly inconsistent and illogical to advance this Clause and the arguments that sustain it, on any other Bill than the one we are now considering. The Under-Secretary has utterly failed, on consistency or any other grounds, to make out his case for the rejection of this Clause. I do not ask him to accept this Clause at this late stage, because I have no doubt that the Home Office could find all sorts of reasons why it should not be accepted, but at least the Under-Secretary and his right hon Friend should look at the matter again. Then, if necessary, they could take appropriate action at another stage of the progress of the Bill through Parliament. If my hon. Friend would give that assurance I have no doubt that he would satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and get rid of the matter.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. McGovern: I also would appeal for further consideration of this Clause by the Under-Secretary of State. He has not attempted to dispute in any way the logic of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) in expressing the view that it would be possible to incorporate this Clause or a similar one in the Bill. The Under-Secretary dismissed the matter in a rather summary manner. It does not matter whether the number of young people affected by the proposal is 400,000, 500,000 or 600,000. The fact is that this is an important section of the electoral community of this country—a section of young people who are
  1052
  enthusiastic and anxious to have the vote, and anxious to live up to the responsibility of our system of democratic government. It is that type of young person who will be affected, and those young people should be encouraged along that road of public duty at the earliest possible moment.
  I especially think so because there is an argument, as has been suggested, that the vote should be given at an earlier age. While I shall not go into that matter now, I would say that when the vote is given at the age of 21 we should be all the more sure that it is given to people as soon as they arrive at the age of 21. I know of cases of people who will be affected. I have a son who will be 21 on Thursday, and will have his first opportunity to vote for me if he has the mind to do so. He will be deprived of the vote in the coming May municipal elections in my area. We shall be postponing for a considerable time the first chance of a young person in such circumstances to vote. If we are the real, live democracy that we say we are, then we ought to ensure by every democratic means in our power that these people are given the vote.
  As the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) said, even if there are a few whom we shall leave unprovided for, we ought not to fail to bring within the scope of the Bill those whom we can, and it is no argument for the exclusion of these 600,000 young men and women who could appear on the register. I would say further, if we are to exclude 600,000 from the next Election, that the Government would not be justified in making any cut in the registrations or in the revision of the electoral register at all in this critical period in the history of democratic government.
  I appeal to the Under-Secretary of State to see whether the Government can apply their minds to this problem, because I am satisfied that Members of the Committee do desire that young people shall be given the vote when they reach the age of 21. We have passed now from the old days of the property qualification and the residential vote, and we have come to the policy that every individual has the right to vote at the age of 21. Despite that, this Bill will deprive of the vote for 10 or 12 months people who are entitled to vote, and that cannot be justified. The Under-Secretary has given no

  1053
  valid reason why this new Clause should not be accepted, and I appeal to him to apply his powers of thinking and of persuasion to other Members of the Government to see whether there is not a way to solve this very simple problem.
  Mr. Tolley: In rejecting the new Clause, the Under-Secretary said that it would defeat the object of the Bill, namely, simplification. Surely, that is not the object of the Bill. The object—unfortunately, because of the economic position of the country—is to save money. It was originally proposed that we should make a new register every six months to remove an anomaly that has always existed in our electoral system because of the early preparation of the register.
  I ask my hon. Friend to give consideration to this most important matter. Let us assume that it is only 600,000 people who are to be affected by this Clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) said, we are at a stage in the history of our country when it is the young people who will be most affected by the future. Because I realise that, I want those young people to have every opportunity of being on the register. There can be no real reason for bluntly rejecting such a Clause. It may not be correctly worded, but I impress upon my hon. Friend that it contains a vital principle, and because a vital principle is at stake I ask him not to reject this Clause tonight, but to ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider it, recognising how many of our young people have a stake in their country and want to play their part in its future, and therefore have a right to say, whether at municipal or at national elections, who shall govern the nation.
  Through this Bill, which has been introduced for a cause we all regret—and when the Bill originally came before us we recognised that to a large number of people it was a travesty of justice to have a yearly register—these young people are deprived of one of their birthrights. I very much regretted the introduction of the Bill when I knew what it would mean to these 600,000 people. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to ask his right hon. Friend to give further consideration to this matter, with a view to introducing at a later stage a Clause which contains at least the principle enunciated by my
  1054
  hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), giving an opportunity of voting to these people who are at present deprived of the right of citizenship, and so righting a wrong which I think has been done because of the present economic position of our country.
  Mr. Viant: I must express disappointment at the reply given by the Under-Secretary—a disappointment which I think will be shared by most hon. Members who heard it. I am sure that when the Under-Secretary reads the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) he will appreciate that each count on which he rejected this Clause has been proved conclusively to be untenable. We have always endeavoured to safeguard the interests of the younger generation, and on that ground alone my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is to be congratulated on this proposal. The figures that he produced have in no way been refuted. It may be that the Under-Secretary has not had time or the opportunity to analyse the validity of those figures.
  I suggest that if he cannot accept this Clause this evening he should at least tell the Committee that he will ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider the merits of the case, so that it will receive favourable consideration at another stage. We have always been desirous, whatever party was in power, of bringing as many electors as possible on to the register. It is unfortunate that we have had to depart from the issuing of two registers a year. Circumstances have made that inevitable. Do not let us be harsh. Do let us try to find a way out in order that we may reduce or modify the ill effect of having to withdraw the second register. I commend this new Clause for further consideration in the hope that, if it is not accepted in toto, at least it will be accepted in principle, and that ways and means may be found of working it out. No technical objection has been raised. I submit that, in the absence of any technical objection, it should be accepted by the Government, and that they should be prepared to give it consideration at a later stage of the Bill.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: I have been in some difficulty in following the precise meaning of the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Horn-

  1055
  church (Mr. Bing). I think that I now understand what is its object. I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong. It is that at the time when the annual register, as operated in the future, is being compiled with reference to the qualifying date of 20th November, note shall be made of those of the age of 20 years and six months, and that the names of those persons shall not appear on the register published on the following 15th March but at a date after 15th March; that is to say, on 15th October their names shall appear in a supplementary list, and as from 15th October following the year of the qualifying date their names shall be added to the register. That, I believe, is what the hon. Member intends.
  I am not at all sure that the words of his new Clause actually give effect to it. So far as that is the principle concerned, I think that everybody in all quarters of the House would wish to support it. It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable principle. In effect, it means that the youngest voter at a Parliamentary election will be no younger in future than they are at present, that is to say, 21 years and approximately four months. It will not add any people under 21 or under the age of 21 years and four months to the electoral register, but it will catch up a certain number of people—what the number may be, I am not at all certain—who would lose the vote by reason of there being only one register annually instead of two. That is a principle to which, I think, we can all give wholehearted support.
  It then becomes a question of the administrative difficulties which may be advanced by the Home Office and the additional expense which may be added as the result of this procedure being adopted. So far I have heard nothing from the Under-Secretary which convinces me that the administrative difficulties are insuperable or that the expenses would be prohibitive. Therefore, I would be inclined, although I do not think that the new Clause is at all happily drafted, to advise my hon. Friends on this side of the House to support the principle which it embodies. I know of the difficult position in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself. The Home Secretary is not here. In those circumstances, I recommend most strongly to him that he should give
  1056
  an undertaking that he will report this discussion and the feeling in the House sympathetically to his right hon. Friend with a view to the matter being considered afresh between now and the Report stage of the Bill.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Awbery: I suggest that the Minister should look at this matter again. Although I do not think the Clause will adequately meet the situation, I think we should make it as easy as possible, and not as difficult as we can, for young people to get the vote at 21. In the matter of military service we do not say to a young man "You are 18 on a certain date, and you will have to wait 12 months before you are called up." I think that a supplementary register should remain open all the time, and that when young people register at 21 they should make an application to the registration officer to be included in that register. On the first day of every quarter that supplementary register could be added to the permanent register. In that way no young person would be left off the register. If the new Clause is not added to the Bill, some young people will be left off, and we wish to see them all get on to the register as soon as possible.
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate the unanimous views which have come from all sides of the Committee. As the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has said, I am in some difficulty tonight in that I am not in a position to pledge my right hon. Friend in this matter. All I can undertake to do is to bring to his notice the strong views which have been expressed and the desire that we should, if possible, try to find a technical method of carrying into effect a principle with which most people would be bound to agree. That I am prepared to do. The Committee will appreciate that the time is very short for this Bill. I had hoped that we would be able to get through the further stages tonight, and I think that all I could undertake now would be to see that before the Bill goes to another place my right hon. Friend will go into this matter thoroughly in the hope of being able to do something.
  Perhaps I did not make clear earlier the principal matter which has been

  1057
  worrying my right hon. Friend on this Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) was, I think, a little unkind in saying that I objected to the Clause because it was important; what I meant was that there is a rather important principle involved in allowing a departure from the general rule that those who can vote are those who were qualified to vote on the qualifying date. We would be making an exception to that, and it is a rather considerable matter to make a departure of that kind in favour of only one category of people, knowing that there are other categories which were not enfranchised at the time of the poll because they were not qualified at the qualifying date, although they have since come to fulfil the qualifying considerations.
  If we are to make this important exception for one class, we should consider whether it should be an exception limited to one class and not applying to numerous others. My hon. Friend mentioned Service voters who make Service declarations before they are 21. They do not enjoy the right to vote if they were not 21 on the qualifying date. We should have to consider the repercussions consequent upon bringing them in, although it might be possible to do it as a matter of machinery. The point I am making is that I doubt whether this should be done for a single class when there are many people who suffer under the same disability. I appreciate that there is

  New Schedule. —(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

  Session and Chapter

  Short Title

  Extent of Repeal

  11 12 Geo. 6. c. 65.

  The Representation of the People Act, 1948.

  In section one, subsection (3).

  In section five, in subsection (1), the words from "which, except in Northern Ireland", to the end of the subsection, and subsections (2) and (3).

  In section twenty-one, subsection (4).

  In section twenty-three, subsection (3), and, in subsection (7), the words "(3) and".

  12 & 13 Geo. 6. c. 68.

  The Representation of the People Act 1949.

  Section three.

  In section seven, in subsection (1), the words "the spring and autumn of", and subsection (3).

  The First Schedule.

  —[Mr. Younger.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Younger:I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
  This Schedule replaces the Second Schedule which we have now moved out of the Bill.
  unanimity in the House about this, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be pre pared to withdraw this new Clause on the understanding that I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to it and that it will be very fully considered with a view to trying to meet the wishes of the Committee when the Bill goes to another place.
  Mr. Bing: I should like to withdraw the Clause in order to facilitate the pas sage of the Measure and to enable my hon. Friend to have the consultations which he has mentioned. Perhaps the House would permit me to add that I hope my hon. Friend will improve on the suggestions which I have made, because while there will be, according to my reckoning, some 600,000 people who may be over 21 and not have a vote, my new Clause will only enable some 350,000 to 400,000 of them to be put on the register. Therefore something better might be done as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery).
  Motion and Clause, by leave, with drawn.>
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule. —(PROVISIONS OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1948, REPEALED.)
  Motion made, and Question, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

  MARRIED WOMEN (RESTRAINT UPON ANTICIPATION) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]
  Clause 1. —(ABOLITION OF RESTRAINT UPON ANTICIPATION, AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I desire briefly to oppose the Motion. This Clause is substantially the greater part of the Bill and the Committee would not wish a repetition of what took place at greater length on a previous occasion. The effect of omitting Clause 1 from the Bill would enable a variety of different provisions to be put in its place, which I realise it would be out of Order for me to deal with now, but hon. Members will find the alternatives upon the Order Paper. I only mention this to show that there are alternatives to Clause I of the Bill but as a necessary preliminary we have to omit Clause I.
  The objection to the Clause—the only matter with which I shall now deal—is that it wholly disregards the wishes of testators and settlors before 1936. Testators and settlors from 1936 onwards have been able to effect whatever they wished, and that has produced similar or better results from their point of view than what was effected by the restraint on anticipation. They could use the protective trust, the discretionary trust or a forfeiture clause. All those methods were possible.
  The one matter upon which I think every section of the Committee, as I think every section of the House, is agreed is that the doctrine of restraint upon anticipation should be done away with for the future. That was done by the Act of 1935. In the light of that Act, settlors and testators made such provision as they thought fit, and could bring about every result that they wished to bring about, as they can today, in order to achieve for the benefit of the woman beneficiary all the benefits that they thought accrued from the restraint upon anticipation.
  1060
  It has been urged, I know, against the view that I am putting, that this will not be the first time that there has been a disregard of the wishes of testators and settlors in this matter, but I think it is, in fact, the first time. The only statutory provisions which have been cited in the course of our Debates, or which indeed could be cited, are such provisions as were contained in Section 39 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, Section 7 of the Conveyancing Act, 1911, and Section 169 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, which is in the same language as, and indeed replaces, Section 7 of the Conveyancing Act, 1911.
  All those sections enabled the court in a proper case to bind the interest in the property, notwithstanding the restraint on anticipation, but, of course, the merits would be gone into and the court would have in mind precisely the considerations that the testator or settlor might be presumed to have had in mind when he made the provision. We should not forget that all the settlements and wills that we shall be upsetting, if we allow Clause 1 to stand part of this Measure, will have been made, I suppose almost without exception, since 1881, and therefore with knowledge of the statutory provision which I have mentioned.
  The only other matter I need mention, because, for the reasons I have given, I desire to deal with this matter very briefly, is that it would be quite erroneous to think that there is something specially onerous or insulting to women in those provisions of the law which the Clause seeks to abolish. The very wills and settlements which used the device of the restraint on anticipation in the case of daughters very frequently used those other methods I have mentioned, the protective trust, the discretionary trust or the forfeiture clause, in the case of sons. It is quite an error to think that a precaution of this kind was something peculiar to women. It was peculiar to women in the sense that the actual doctrine of restraint on anticipation could only be imposed in the case of a woman, but clauses which would have, I do not say an identical, but a similar and equally restrictive effect in protecting the income in the case of a son could be and infrequently were inserted.
  9.0 p.m.
  If we allow Clause 1 to stand part, we shall not only wholly ignore the wishes of settlors and testators before 1st January, 1936, but we shall also be abolishing a device which has very often, in the knowledge of all practitioners of the law and the public generally, been effective in securing that the wish of a father to provide for an income for his daughter in all circumstances during her marriage with a particular man, of whom he might know little, should be effective. It has prevented numerous women from losing all they possessed.
  I hope very much that the Government will realise that, if they allow Clause 1 to go, they can get the reform of the law which will bring about everything which anybody can legitimately desire to bring about, and everything which led them to propose the reform, without the ill effects which I have mentioned. I. therefore, hope that the House will decide to negative the Clause.
  Air - Commodore Harvey: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) that Clause 1 provides the bulk of the matter which we are discussing. I also agree with him that it does not allow the wishes of testators and settlors to be carried out. My contention is that testators and settlors knew their daughters, granddaughters and nieces far better than we do as legislators. It was suggested a few days ago by the Attorney-General that not much care was taken when documents were signed by the fathers, but I believe that they took infinite care to see that what they signed was what they really meant.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross) indicated dissent.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I see that the Attorney-General shakes his head. It is a matter of conjecture. It means going back some years. I imagine that the lawyers did very well out of it, at any rate. The hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) referred to this matter and emphasised the position of women with a small income, perhaps of £100 a year. I do not think that such women are affected by this Measure. The parents of women receiving small annui-
  1062
  ties probably did not trouble to tie up the money. We are probably dealing with sums bringing in a minimum income of £300 to £500 annually.
  Mrs. Leah Manning: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that a man who has had to work very hard in order to secure an income would be one of the very first to tie up his money in the fear that some wolf would devour it before his daughter could get at it?
  Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. Lady may be quite right but she is bearing out the point which I made previously, that they took care to see that the money was tied up. I hope that the hon. Lady will speak on this Clause and try to tie up the Attorney-General. Today we are discussing this matter of the freeing of money, and only last weekend the Lord President of the Council was referring to a large sum of money which was to be received by Mr. Lord of Austin's, a man who has been making a great contribution to the solution of present-day difficulties and employing 20,000 odd people. Under this Clause we are freeing something which, in one or two cases, will amount to £20,000 to £40,000 a year income which these people would not otherwise have got.
  It seems wholly out of place that the Bill should be hurried through in this way. Had we been able to take a free vote on this matter in the first place, the Government might have been defeated. As it was, few were here to express their views or to vote. The hon. Member for the Aston Division of Birmingham (Mr. Wyatt), who is not in his place tonight, made a most dreadful speech. It was nauseating. He said that we were offended because Lord Mountbatten had betrayed the Tories. I never knew that he was with us anyhow, and I do not know that we particularly want him, but he is a fine officer and I do not think politics come into this in any way.
  I shall end by making one reference to Clause 2, which is the shortest Clause in the Bill—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The Question before the Committee is that Clause 1 stands part of the Bill—not Clause 2.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Then, on Clause 1, Mr. Bowles, I will refer to the name at the top of page 1. A better name would have been the "Husbands Assistance Bill."
  Mr. Marlowe: I also support those who wish to see this Clause negatived, because I have not yet found any case made out for it. I approach the matter in this way: obviously, when one is disturbing the will of a deceased man, one is undertaking a solemn act. Presumably, when a will has contained this clause, it has been put in for a reason by the testator, and it is a reason which may never be known to any of us. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, on Second Reading, said that he imagined that in most cases it was put in merely because it was a pro forma clause, and that most lawyers inserted it automatically. That may well be so in a number of cases, but we are not dealing with that number of cases—we are dealing with all cases. There may equally be a large number of cases in which the clause was put in with solemn thought for a purpose, to safeguard a certain situation.
  I cannot help feeling that we are doing a serious thing when, in the dark in this way, we are disturbing the will of a person who has undertaken this solemn act and is no longer here to explain his own actions. When undertaking such a task as that, obviously the onus is on those who put it forward to establish some reason for so doing. I have heard no reason whatever during the progress of this Bill as to why this action should be taken at any time, and at this juncture in our affairs in any event. I would much prefer that in place of this Clause there should be some protection left so that at least the matter should be under the control of the court and that only by application to a judge should the restraint be removed. I will not pursue that line, Mr. Bowles, because we are debating the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but I put it forward as an argument on the question of whether the Government, who introduced this Clause, have discharged the onus of satisfying this House that it is a reasonable one to introduce now.
  On the question of time, it seems unfortunate at this period in our history, when an acute crisis is once again being
  1064
  undergone by the country, that such a Clause should be introduced which has the effect of unfreezing certain assets which were otherwise frozen. The Government have called upon the trade unions to freeze wages. They have themselves frozen post-war credits, they have themselves done everything they could to prevent further money from being put into circulation, except in this instance, where they have suddenly, for no apparent reason, adopted the precisely opposite policy and, while they expect the workers of the country to have their wages frozen, they think it justifiable to unfreeze the fortunes of heiresses. I regard that as a most unfortunate thing to do at this particular time, and for that reason, and for others which I have already explained, I shall be bound to oppose this Clause.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope that, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes to answer the questions put to him by my hon. and learned Friend, he will have something to say about the point made during the Second Reading Debate by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan), because in the consideration of this Bill it is a rather material point. The hon. and learned Gentleman then put forward the view that this removal of restraint upon anticipation would not really be to the benefit of anyone who wanted to sell the top slice of their income to somebody or other for a capital payment, because the liability for Surtax Would not in those circumstances be avoided. I think that was the gist of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he agrees with that view, and, if he does, what is the particular case which makes it of such importance that we should now press on with this Bill in its present form.
  I take the view that there should be power to relieve against restraint upon anticipation in cases where that relief is desirable. I said on Second Reading that I thought the case for such relief was overwhelming. I do; but this Bill, which shows all the signs of haste, while abolishing the restraint upon anticipation which was imposed before 1933, does in fact remove a protection from some married women where I have no doubt that protection is just as necessary today as it

  1065
  has been in the past, and where I have no doubt the testators were quite right in seeking to impose such protection.
  I must say that I think it is deplorable that the Government should not have sought to bring before this House a Bill which, while giving facilities for relief from restraint upon anticipation, at the same time endeavoured to allow that restraint to be maintained in cases where its maintenance was both necessary and desirable. I think that could have been done, either by saying that the restraint should not be inoperative save with the consent of the trustees, or, alternatively, should only be inoperative—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he really must not make either a Second Reading speech or alternative proposals, which it was in Order for him to do on Second Reading.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am certainly not endeavouring to make a Second Reading speech; in fact, I had almost concluded my remarks. I thought I was addressing myself strictly to this Clause and to reasons why it should not stand part of the Bill. In my submission, this Clause is defective in that respect, and I was indicating, I hope very shortly, that there were two possible methods, either of which might have met the particular defect which I find exists in this Clause. One of them was by saying that the restraint could only be inoperative with the consent of the trustees, and the other was by saying that it could only be inoperative with the consent of the court. That is my objection to the Clause in its present form, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he replies, will not only satisfy my objections to this Clause, but will also resolve the problem raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester.
  9.15 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Perhaps I might at once pick up the point which has just been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what view I took in regard to a proposition that was put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) in regard to some aspect of taxation law. I must say at once that
  1066
  I do not propose to be drawn into that matter, and for this reason. I made it, I hope, abundantly clear in the course of our Debate on Second Reading that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as myself and as the rest of the Government, adheres firmly to the view that the question of the effect of the proposed changes in this Bill upon Revenue is utterly irrelevant to the proposal contained in it.
  It has never been suggested, as far as I know—and I should be surprised if the hon. and learned Gentleman is now going to be the first to suggest it—that it should become a principle of our law or of our legislative policy Chat a man's power to dispose of his property as he chooses should be restricted in favour of the Revenue. We do not think it right in considering this Bill on its merits to consider whether or not this alteration in the power of a married woman to deal with her property as she chooses will or will not affect her liability to pay tax. If this proposal is right on its merits so far as married women are concerned then it remains right, although it might result in some reduction in Revenue. If it is wrong on its merits, then the Revenue position is not affected.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have certainly not sought to suggest that our conclusions on this matter should be determined by the impact of the Revenue laws, but I do think it material, now that the point has been raised from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's side of the House by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester, who is something of an authority on these matters, that we should have an answer to the point from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. H. Strauss: I understand the force of the argument which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just used, and for the reason he has given I appreciate his argument that the consideration is irrelevant. But that was not the view taken by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in winding up the Second Reading Debate. The Financial Secretary expressed a view in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan), so that I think it is a little difficult for the right hon. and learned Attorney-General to treat it as quite irrelevant.
  Mr. Donovan: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that the point was raised from this side. What actually happened was that it was raised from the other side, namely, in the contention that if this Bill were passed Surtax would be avoided. I merely said that would be wrong, and that, therefore, the objection which the Opposition had to the Bill had no foundation.
  The Attorney-General: I think that my hon. and learned Friend has finally and certainly effectively disposed of the point raised by hon. Members opposite in order to sidetrack discussion on the real merits of this question.
  Sir John Mellor: I will read to the House what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in his winding-up speech on 7th November:
  "I should now like to deal with the Inland Revenue point. It has been said, particularly by those opposing the Bill, that if the Bill is passed there will be a diminution of revenue from Income Tax and certainly from Surtax. The speeches made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) and the hon. Member for Chichester should dispose of that suggestion."
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Baronet would, I think, have been a little more frank with the Committee if he had read the next sentence. I will read the next sentence for the hon. Baronet—
  Sir J. Mellor Sir J. Mellor rose —
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): Order. The Attorney-General has possession of the Floor and, unless he chooses to give way, the hon. Member cannot get possession.
  Sir J. Mellor: On a point of Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made an aspersion and said I had not been frank, but I would have been most willing if he had allowed me to read further.
  The Attorney-General: I do not want to make any aspersion against the hon. Baronet. I am sorry he feels so sensitive about the matter, but the point we were discussing was whether the Financial Secretary did concede that the Revenue argument was relevant to this Bill. That was the point, not whether my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester was right or wrong, but the
  1068
  question of whether the Revenue argument was relevant. That was the point to which the hon. Baronet ought to have directed his mind when he thought it right to intervene in the Debate. What did the Financial Secretary say about it?
  "In any case, supposing it were true, it is no argument against the Bill. It is not, and never has been, the view of the Inland Revenue that persons should be compelled to retain property so that they would have to pay tax upon it. If hon. Gentlemen opposite desire that policy to be embodied in the law of the land, they can put the proposal forward at the proper time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1011.]
  I am bound to say, having refreshed my memory as a result of the intervention of the hon. Baronet, that the matter was far better put by the Financial Secretary on that occasion than I put it myself a moment or two ago. What is perfectly clear about the matter is that at all times the Government have taken up the consistent position that the Revenue argument is totally irrelevant to the merits of the proposal now before the House and, consequently, I do not propose to pursue it any further.
  Mr. Marlowe: May I put a point on that? I can see the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the merits but, of course, there is the argument I and others put forward on the question of the timing of this Measure—
  The Attorney-General: I am coming to that.
  Mr. Marlowe: The question of whether or not the Revenue suffers is important on the question of timing.
  The Attorney-General: No, I am afraid I cannot accept that view at all. The question of timing is another point and I cannot accept that it has any relevance to the Revenue aspect of the matter. I do not accept that it can ever be right to deprive a woman or a man of what on the merits of the case he or she is entitled to merely because of the effect on the Revenue.
  I rather suspect that the speeches to which we have listened this evening have been those of the second eleven. Those hon. Members opposite who took a prominent part in the Second Reading Debate have for the most part stayed away from the Committee stage and the

  1069
  second eleven have been put in to bat, but I could not help feeling that they showed evidence of practice at the nets under the same coach and repeated very much the same kind of argument. I do not complain of that, because, after all, we are discussing Clause 1 of the Bill and, as there are only two Clauses and the second is merely the short title Clause, debate on Clause 1, if it took place at all, was almost inevitably bound to cover much the same ground as the Second Reading Debate.
  On Second Reading the points of substance raised by hon. Members opposite were very fully canvassed and the House decided by a very considerable majority to give a Second Reading to the Bill, and I should be quite disloyal to the decision of the House on Second Reading, if I attempted to go over the various points on the merits which were raised by hon. Members on Second Reading at this stage of the Bill.
  The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) devoted himself as far as he was able within the rules of Order to canvassing the merits of the Clauses which stand upon the Order Paper in his name, but for which he thinks unfortunately there may not be an opportunity of discussing at a later stage of the Bill. Obviously I cannot follow him in that. But the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) and the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) following, I think, a tendency which exhibited itself in our Second Reading Debate and which has been manifested in certain of the newspapers since, took perhaps a rather different and, I think, more regrettable line.
  I ventured to say on Second Reading that this was a subject which we ought to try to discuss objectively and on the merits, but that it was manifestly one which provided an opportunity for demagogy. I cannot help feeling that it is a matter for regret that certain hon. Members opposite have been unable to resist that opportunity and some of them, with complete cynicism and in complete disregard of their more usual rô le as protectors of the more moneyed classes in the community, are pretending and have pretended before the Committee today that this Bill gives preferential treatment
  1070
  to the wealthy, and they are pretending to oppose it on that ground.
  I say nothing whatever about the real grounds which may be inspiring the opposition of some hon. Members opposite, but I think what hon. Members opposite are now seeking to do—hon. Members who, when it suits, have shed pious tears about the so-called class war—is themselves to provide ammunition—unfused ammunition, rather blank ammunition it may be, but nevertheless ammunition—for the class war. They want to create ill-will between the more wealthy classes of the community, whom they have hitherto sought to represent, and those who are less fortunately placed. They want to suggest that the workers, who have hitherto shown such admirable restraint in not asking for increases in their wages, are being treated in one way and that heiresses are being treated in another.
  If a married woman whose father has left her perhaps £4,000 to £5,000, from which she is receiving an income of £3 per week before she pays her taxes, is in the heiress class, then this Bill may assist some heiresses. At any rate, it assists them on this question—that whether they are married or single they will be treated on exactly the same basis and be subject in the same way to the full rigour of the Revenue laws. No special disability will fall upon them as a result of their marriage; no special disability will be removed from them as a result of their divorce.
  That is all this Bill does, and to say that it is one which favours heiresses at the expense of the rest of the community is really most unhappily misleading. Hon. Members opposite are pursuing tactics which are too obvious to cause us much anxiety or concern, but if they were not suffering from the mental myopia which is so often an occupational disease of Members of the Tory Party, they would appreciate that this argument which they are using tonight may very easily recoil upon their own heads at some later stage.
  9.30 p.m.
  Since this Bill was introduced and passed here on Second Reading, the evidence has been accumulating as to the need for it. Many letters have been received, I expect, by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee as well

  1071
  as by myself. I have not, as a matter of fact, received a single letter in opposition to this Bill. I do not attach undue importance to that because I think that, very often, people write letters to the Members whom they think are likely to support their particular view. They knew that I was supporting this Bill, and if they were opposed to it they would have been more likely to write to hon. Members on the opposite side of the Committee. However, the fact is that I have received no letters in opposition. I would just read to the Committee, if I may, because it conveys the whole essence of the matter far better than I can myself, the last letter I have had. This is from a lady who says:
  "I hesitate to add to your very heavy correspondence, but as one who is to benefit under the Married Women (Restraint upon Anticipation) Bill I feel I must tell you with what deep appreciation I have just read the full text in HANSARD of your speech in moving the Second Reading."
  A very intelligent woman.
  "I have for years felt bitter resentment that, as a comparatively capable business woman, I was restrained from dealing as I thought fit with my own property. In trustee stock it brings me in an income of £150 a year. Had I freedom to deal with the capital myself, and to invest a portion of it either in my own or my husband's business, it might make a substantial difference to our position."
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that she will have freedom to deal with the capital herself?
  The Attorney-General: It depends entirely on the terms of the trust. There may well be complete freedom to deal with it herself. It depends entirely on the terms of the settlement. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know perfectly well that under some provisions, some wills, apart from restraint on anticipation, a woman has complete freedom to deal with the property as she wishes. That, I thought, was one of the points that had been made on Second Reading in regard to the position that some heiresses might find themselves in, where, if there were other beneficiaries, there might be agreement between the beneficiaries to put an end to this altogether. But, of course, there are cases where there are no other beneficiaries involved at all. Then she goes on:
  "There is, too, in the minds of people, like ourselves of limited resources, a constant fear
  1072
  of being faced with a situation similar to the heart-rending case you quoted in the House, and I believe that when this Bill becomes law it will bring peace of mind and a sense of security to a great many homes—not the sort of homes that Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite, in his lamentable ignorance of the situation, appeared to envisage, but of people of quite modest means. I know of four or five women whose position is similar to my own. In not one single case is a very large sum involved, nor do I think any of them or their husbands would regard the passage of the Bill as a sign for a spending spree.
  "As to the possibility of seeking relief from the courts, this is, as you so rightly say, quite unrealistic. The legal fees which I myself have already incurred in seeking legal aid, and in taking counsel's opinion as to my position under the existing law, amount to several hundred pounds. All women benefiting by the Bill owe you a very deep debt of gratitude for the way in which it was presented to the House, and, speaking for myself, it is no exaggeration to say that the prospect of liberation has made the greatest possible difference to my own and my husband's happiness."
  Sir J. Mellor: I am really rather revolted by the smug self-satisfaction of the Attorney-General in the way he read that letter, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that if the Mountbatten Bill had passed into law this Bill would never have been introduced, and, therefore, the people from whom he has received letters would not have had the opportunity of writing them. Therefore, I really think that it was positively indecent of him to come to the Committee to try to take the credit. This Bill was introduced only when it was seen that the Mountbatten Bill was not likely to pass into law.
  Mr. H. Strauss: I wish only to say a few words in answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he really was less than fair to the arguments I put forward. He was quite wrong in thinking that I had said a word, either inferentially or otherwise, on the merits of later Amendments, in respect of which Clause 1 would have to be removed before I could move them. I confined myself to the demerits of Clause 1. Nor did I mention any case of an heiress, or any of those points to which he devoted so large a part of his speech.
  The Attorney-General: I did not for a moment suggest the hon. and learned Gentleman did. I have mentioned the hon. Members with whom I linked that part of my speech.
  Mr. Strauss: I entirely agree, but it follows from that that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not dealt, or attempted to deal, with a single one of the arguments I put forward. The Committee need not be afraid that I am going to repeat those arguments, but I think it right that the Committee should realise that, while it is true that if this Clause goes through as it now stands some women will be benefited, it is also true that some women will almost certainly lose. Both those things are true. But what is absolutely certain is that the wishes of testators and settlors before 1936 will have been ignored, whereas, had the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded differently, or even if he proceeded differently at this late stage and let this Clause go, he could meet the cases that he has in mind without that wholesale disregard of the wishes of testators and settlors which he knows is shocking many eminent judges and practitioners in the Chancery Division.
  Mr. Marlowe: I ask the Attorney-General to come back to the question of the loss to the Revenue, because although he has made his case on that aspect of the matter in relation to the merits of the Clause—in which I agree there is a considerable amount of force—that does not dispose of the matter. There are two aspects to be considered when we are deciding whether or not to pass this Clause: one is that of the merits of the case itself, with which I shall not deal again now; and the other is the question whether we ought to be passing such a Clause at this particular time.
  We must always consider any legislation against the background of the time when we are dealing with it, and one of the great objections which I believe a large number of people have to this Bill—leaving aside whether it affects heiresses or anybody else—is the point I took previously, that the policy of the Government is so incomprehensible in unfreezing certain assets at one time while at another time they are freezing assets. It is that inconsistency which I, in common with many others, find very difficult to understand, and it is one of the matters we are entitled to consider when deciding how to vote on a Clause of this kind.
  I therefore do not think the Attorney-General can quite ride off the point made by his hon. and learned Friend the Mem-
  1074
  ber for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) by saying that it is immaterial. If it is important to consider whether this is the right moment to deal with this matter on the question whether or not some assets are frozen, then the point made by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester becomes of great importance. I confess I was very surprised when I saw that point made by the hon. and learned Member. I know little of taxation law and he knows a very great deal, so I was immensely impressed with that particular point. When he said, as I understand it, in substance, that even when restraint was removed in this manner and the capital dealt with by the beneficiary, the Revenue would be able to follow the tax and recover it from the person from whom the interest—
  Mr. Donovan Mr. Donovan rose —
  Mr. Marlowe: That is what I understood to be the effect of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. I gather I am wrong and that the hon. and learned Member wishes to interrupt me to say so. If that is the case, I will certainly give way, because it is a point of great importance.
  Mr. Donovan: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will read HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that I did not say a word about capital. How on earth can the lifting of a restraint upon anticipation allow the beneficiary to deal with the capital, other things being equal?
  Mr. Marlowe: It is because I am in this difficulty over this matter that I am asking the Attorney-General to deal with it. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester will tell me whether I interpreted him wrongly when I understood him to say that it would be possible for the person to whom the benefit was transferred to be pursued by the Revenue. That is what I understood to be the effect of what he said—that the interest from the corpus would still be subject to the same taxation as it would be if the interest were received by the present beneficiary. I have a great respect for his knowledge of these matters. I think that this is one matter which we cannot lightly disregard, and that we are entitled to have the opinion of the Attorney-General on that particular question before we decide on this matter.

  1075
  I have only one other point to put to the Committee. It is in relation to the attitude which the Attorney-General has adopted to what he regarded as the pious tears which were being shed on this side of the Committee over the contrast between the freezing of wages for workers and the unfreezing of these particular assets. The right hon. and learned Gentleman depended for that purpose on certain letters which he read. He is entitled to get what satisfaction he can from those letters, and I must confess that the particular one which he read showed a better appreciation of the position than one which I received, and which urged me to put down an Amendment to ensure that this so-called benefit was extended to spinsters. That shows the appreciation which some people have of the point in question.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not I think prayed in aid that aspect of the matter. He has himself said that had it not been for the Mountbatten Bill, and had it not been for the fact that the removal of the Mountbatten Bill from our deliberations left time for this Bill to be brought in, this Bill would never have been brought in. When he says that there are these poor, pathetic cases which are covered by this Bill, he must also, I think, remind the House that the Government were making no attempt to deal with these poor, pathetic cases and would never have done so, as he agrees himself, unless the Mountbatten Bill had been got out of the way to make room for them. This is not a spontaneous attempt by the Government to meet the tragic cases of small fortunes. When he says that we are shedding pious tears, I say that from the attitude which he has adopted in that respect he is shedding crocodile tears.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not intend to make a second speech this evening, but I think that, after what the Attorney-General has said, it is desirable that I should make a few comments on his speech. I must say that, although I have no doubt from the manner in which he delivered his speech that it gave him great satisfaction to say the things he did. I regard that speech as completely lamentable. It is very easy for him to make all sorts of cheap gibes, and he has showed in that connection that there is
  1076
  some truth in the statement which he made some time ago—"We are the masters now." Of this sort of cheap gibes he is the undoubted master.
  Why I regard his speech as completely lamentable is that he has never really answered the point put by those who are critical of this Bill. It is this: Why has he gone for this complete abolition without adopting the alternative method put forward in another place, and put forward here on Second Reading, in which case I think that this Bill would have gone through without any opposition at all? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the case; instead, he has indulged in cheap gibes.
  9.45 p.m.
  He talked about the second eleven. All I can say is that he could not meet the bowling of the second eleven because he has not answered the questions, especially the pertinent question raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan), dealing with revenue considerations. If the hon. and learned Member is right, it is right, unless the Revenue want to lay traps for people, that a warning should be given here and now. If his view is right, and restraints upon anticipation are removed in consequence of the Bill, surely the Attorney-General does not want to lay traps for women who are relieved from this restraint upon anticipation. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say whether the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester is right. This is an important question, and one which requires an answer. The Attorney-General seemed to indicate that if he wanted the Bill to pass he did not want it to pass quickly, because I have seldom heard such a provocative speech from a Minister who wanted an easy passage for his Bill.
  The Attorney-General: I am not concerned whether I get an easy passage from hon. Members opposite for the Bill or not; they can make whatever political capital they like out of the Bill, but I do not think it would help them much. I am prepared to stay here for a long time discussing this Bill, but I will try to knock for six the particular points which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) thought it right to raise.

  1077
  It is, as he knows perfectly well, quite incorrect to say that I have not dealt with the alternative proposals that might have been introduced into the Bill but which were not introduced. The alternative proposals were fully considered in another place, and on Second Reading in this House they were the subject of prolonged Debate. I expressed my views about them then, and I think the hon. and learned Member for Daventry also expressed his views. I do not think my views gain much from repetition, and I doubt whether the hon. and learned Gentleman's views gain anything at all from repetition. I will not, therefore, impose on the Committee a repetition of the arguments which were canvassed before the House on Second Reading, and which the House decisively rejected on its vote on the Motion for the Second Reading.
  Now I come to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). I am sorry if I did not deal with the arguments he put forward, and I hope he will acquit me of any discourtesy, because he puts serious points and they are worthy of serious consideration. But the reason I did not deal with those points is the same as the reason I do not intend to deal, and have not dealt, with the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry. The points made by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities were also fully canvassed on the Second Reading Debate, and what is the good of going over precisely the same ground again when the House has already decided the matter?
  There is, however, one thing which the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities said that I cannot pass completely without challenge. I cannot agree that the Bill will undo, as he suggested, the deliberately formed intention of the great mass of testators and settlors in whose wills or settlements this restraint upon anticipation clause appeared. I have been at some pains to ascertain what the practice was in the profession in this matter. I have no knowledge of it myself, but I consulted those engaged in this branch of the law. I am bound to rely on what was said in the "Law Times" on this matter, in an article dealing with the whole subject and
  1078
  —I want to be fair—which was hostile to the Bill. That article stated:
  "A restraint was practically invariably attached to life interests given to women before 1935, and the number of wills and settlements containing such a provision must be very large. The device, originally doubtless intended for the wealthy woman, was generally adopted by the conveyancers"—
  not by the testators, not by the settlors, but by the conveyancers—
  "for women in very humble circumstances." Any practising lawyer will concede that they were put into settlements or wills as a matter of common form, and if settlors or testators asked to have the effect of them explained, they were told that they were a common form and that they were the usual thing to do and would protect the girl. They had no idea at all that the result would be, not only that it might protect the wife in some way, but that it would also prevent her from dealing with her property as she might wish to do. I assert that without doubt in the vast majority of cases where these restraints have been imposed in the cases of humble people, the testators or settlors have not realised that what they were doing was not only protecting their daughter's interest against a third party, but preventing that daughter from dealing with the property herself.
  Mr. H. Strauss: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the test of whether the testators' or settlors' wishes are interfered with is to be found in what was the sequel to the passage of the 1935 Act?
  The Attorney-General: Certainly.
  Mr. Strauss: And does he dispute that what was said, for instance, by a well-known practitioner, Mr. John Sparrow, in his letter to "The Times" is true, that since the Act testators and settlors have used all sorts of alternative methods producing similar results precisely because the 1935 Act was on the Statute Book?
  The Attorney-General: I do dispute that, and I dealt with this and other points on Second Reading. Such information as we possess—and it is a good point which has been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman—shows that since restraints became illegal after the 1935 Act, other devices have been

  1079
  resorted to but only in a comparatively small proportion of the cases, which bears out the argument that had the two methods been available to testators or settlors at the early date, and had their minds been directed to them, they would probably have chosen neither.
  Mr. Marlowe: There is a great deal of substance in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. In many cases this was merely put in pro forma, but this Bill also covers other cases where it was put in with thought and care. That is the point I am worrying about, because the cases where it was put in pro forma could be dealt with by application to the courts while the others could not.
  The Attorney-General: We shall have an opportunity of discussing that on the new Clause on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). I wish, in passing, only to say that I can see no reason for penalising the great majority of married women simply because a minority might have had some form of restraint imposed upon them. That is the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe).
  Even if I am absolutely wrong about all this, even if in the absence of restraint a protective trust or some other device were imposed by testators and settlors, I would still say that it would be wrong to maintain that protection now. I adhere to the view, which was cogently put forward by the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) on Second Reading, when he said that our law in the past had allowed far too great an influence by the dead hand on the
  lives of living people. I think it is a very good thing to put an end to it.
  I have only one other observation to make, and it refers to a point put by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton and the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field (Sir J. Mellor). I am prepared to thank hon. Members opposite for having drawn our attention at the time of the Mountbatten Bill to the possibility of introducing a general Measure. I am grateful to them, because the result no doubt is that this is a far better Bill than the Mountbatten Bill would have been. I accept that at once. Why we should, for that reason, reject this Bill I am not quite sure.
  I would only add this: The hon. Baronet is completely mistaken in supposing that the Mountbatten Bill could not have been passed by this House. I thought I had put forward on Second Reading—I do not think the hon. Baronet was here at that time—the compelling reason which would have led this House, dealing with the Bill, as it has to do on a personal Bill, as a quasi-judicial matter, to pass the Bill. I do not think that anybody has seriously doubted that if that Bill had gone on we should have been bound to treat it as a quasi-judicial matter, as one to which we should have to assent. It was because of that dilemma that we thought that the idea put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite of having a general Bill was a good one. We are disappointed that, having put forward the idea, they are now seeking, for motives into which I do not inquire, not to support it.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 223: Noes, 20.

  Division No 293]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Binns, J.

  Collins, V. J.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Boardman, H.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Bowden,H. W.

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

  Alpass, J. H.

  Bower, N.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

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

  Cullen, Mrs.

  Altewell, H. C.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Daggar, G.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Bramall, E. A.

  Daines, P.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Baird, J.

  Burden, T. W.

  Deer, G.

  Balfour, A.

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

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Barton, C.

  Carmichael, James

  Dobbie, W.

  Battley, J. R.

  Champion, A. J.

  Donovan, T.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Dye, S.

  Berry, H.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Beswick, F.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Edelman, M.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Collindridge, F.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel

  Longden, F.

  Royle, C.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir. H.

  Sargood, R.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Farthing, W. J.

  McAdam, W.

  Segal, D. S.

  Fernyhough, E.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Sharp, Granville

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

  McGovern, J.

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

  Follick, M.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Shurmer, P.

  Forman, J. C.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  McLeavy, F.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Skeffington-Lodge, I. C.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Gibbins, J.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Gilzean, A.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir. Frank

  Grey, C. F.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Steels, T.

  Guy, W. H.

  Medland, H. M.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Hardman, D. R.

  Monslow, W.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansheld)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Harrison, J.

  Morley, R.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Mort, D. L.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Haworth, J.

  Moyle, A.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Murray, J. D.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Timmons, J.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Tolley, L.

  Holman, P.

  O'Brien, T.

  Viant, S. P.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Oldfield, W H

  Wadsworth, G.

  Houghton. Douglas

  Paget, R. I.

  Walker, G. H.

  Hoy, J.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

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

  Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

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

  Palon, J. (Norwich)

  Weitzman, D.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Pearson, A.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

  Peart, T. F.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

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

  Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

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

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Popplewell, E.

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

  Janner, B.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

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

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Wilkes, L.

  John, W.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Randall, H. E.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Keenan, W.

  Ranger, J.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Kinley, J.

  Rankin, J.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Lavers, S.

  Reeves, J.

  Willis, E.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Levy, B. W.

  Rhodes, H.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Woods, G. S.

  Hubbard, I.

  Robens, A.

  Yates, V. F.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Young, Sir. R. (Newton)

  Linstead, H. N.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneir

  Lipson, D. L.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Logan, D. G.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Gage, C.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Baldwin, A. E.

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

  Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

  Barlow, Sir. J.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  York, C.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Neven-Spence, Sir. B.

  Air-Commander Harvey and

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

  Price-White, D.

  Sir John Mellor.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  New Clause. —(POWER TO APPLY TO THE COURT FOR RELIEF IN SPECIAL CASES.)
  (1) Where a restriction on anticipation or alienation was immediately before the passing of this Act attached to any interest in or income from property (in this section called
  1082
  "the trust property") which interest or income belonged or was payable to a married woman (in this section called "the principal beneficiary") and such restriction ceases to be effective by virtue of the provisions of section one of this Act, then any of the persons mentioned in the next following subsection of this section may apply to the Court within the period of six months from the date of the passing of this Act for such relief as is mentioned in subsections (3) and (4) of this section.
  (2) The persons who may apply to the Court as aforesaid are the trustees for the time being of the Act or settlement under which the interest arises or in whom the trust property is vested as the case may be (in this section called "the trustees") or the principal beneficiary.
  (3) The Court may, if it is satisfied on any such application as aforesaid that the effect of the cesser of the restriction by virtue of section one of this Act is detrimental or likely to be detrimental to the interests of the principal beneficiary and that it is just and equitable so to do, by order direct that the income from the trust property or any part thereof or any annuity or other periodical income payment comprised in the trust property in so far as such income would otherwise be payable to the principal beneficiary shall be held on protective trusts as defined by section thirty-three of the Trustee Act, 1925, for the benefit of the principal beneficiary for such period as the principal beneficiary shall remain married (but not for any period of a subsequent marriage).
  (4) The Court may, if it thinks fit, in making any order under this section—

  (a) direct that such order shall be deemed to have been made on the date of the passing of this Act or such later date as may to the Court seem fit, and

  (b) in any case where the principal beneficiary has already done or suffered an act or thing or where an event has happened before the actual date of the making of the order whereby the trust of the income from the trust property in favour of the principal beneficiary during the period of her marriage would have failed or determined under the provisions of sub-paragraph (i) of subsection (1) of section thirty-three of the Trustee Act, 1925, direct that the income from the trust property shall be held upon the trusts set out in sub-paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of the said section thirty-three with immediate effect from the date of the order and the order shall be effective accordingly.

  (5) At any time upon the request of the principal beneficiary made within six months after the passing of this Act the trustees may furnish her with a certificate that they have not applied and do not intend to apply to the Court for an order under this section in respect of her interest in the whole or any part of the trust property or the income there from and after the making of any such certificate no application for relief under this section shall be entertained by the Court in respect of the interest or income described in the certificate.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  10.10 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  Perhaps I should first declare a personal interest in this matter. I should perhaps have done so when I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill. I am
  1084
  a trustee of a trust in which there are life tenants who are restrained from anticipation. It is not a matter in which I have any direct financial interest but, on the other hand, it is a personal interest and it is only right that I should make the fact known to the Committee before moving this Clause.
  I am in favour of the principle of this Bill. As I have just voted for Clause 1 to stand part of the Bill, it will hardly be denied that I have gone rather further than paying lip service to it. On the other hand, I am in favour of the Bill provided that a serious blemish in it is put right. There are serious injustices which will follow the Bill becoming an Act if it does so without amendment. I referred on Second Reading to the possibility of such injustices and it happens quite by chance, that one such case has come to my own attention between the Second Reading of the Bill and the present time.
  The case is that of a married woman who is enjoying a small income from a settlement which I believe represents her father's savings that were left to her. It was a sum of £2,000 or £3,000, of the order just mentioned by the learned Attorney-General. Her life interest is subject to a restraint upon anticipation. This lady was persuaded by her husband one or two years ago to guarantee his overdraft with the bank. I understand that at the time he pointed out to her that her trust income was subject to a restraint, and the bank was so informed.
  What has happened? The husband has gone bankrupt and the lady, with a small child, is living on an income of £2 or £3 a week provided by this settlement, being the income from the life savings of her father. If this Bill passes in its present form, that income will immediately become assets for the payment of her husband's debts, her life interest will be taken and sold, and there will virtually be nothing left for the lady and her child on which to live.
  I do not know what the learned Attorney-General or any hon. Member of this Committee may think about that case, but I am certain that no one can deny that the injustice involved is such that it cannot be tolerated for one moment and that something must be done to put that position right. I do not know how many cases of that sort there may be

  1085
  up and down the country. I have made such inquiries as I can, but it is impossible to tell. The learned Attorney-General earlier this evening read a letter which he had received, and it was quite clear from that letter that his correspondent had no idea at all what were the contents of this Bill. It was quite clear that she thought that the effect of this Bill would enable her to deal directly with the capital of her trust.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has raised in his new Clause a very serious point, with which I shall endeavour to deal frankly and fairly when the time comes, but is that not rather a red herring? It is true that, dependent on the terms of the settlement, a woman may either be able to deal directly with her capital or sell her interest to an insurance company or a bank, which is exactly the same thing. In effect, this woman, freed from the restraint, will be able to realise—perhaps that is the better phrase—the capital value of her interest, whatever that interest may be. It may be that, if she had only a life interest, she will be able to realise the capital value of that life interest. It may be that there are no other beneficiaries under the trust and that she might be able to realise the whole capital value of the settled property. It is true, I think—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman, who has great experience of these matters, will help me here—that, in one way or the other, once this restraint is removed, the married woman will be able to realise the capital value, whatever it may be, of her property.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I quite appreciate what the learned Attorney-General says, and, in a way, this is a red herring to this new Clause. The only point I was seeking to make is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's correspondent, whose letter he read out, was almost certainly mistaken as to the effect of the meaning of the Bill. I venture to say, from my own knowledge and from the discussions and correspondence which I have had, that not 99 out of 100, but 999 out of 1,000 really do not understand what is the meaning of this Bill at all. I am quite sure that there are a large number of women affected in the way I have described who are entirely ignorant at the present time that the passing of this Bill will place their entire worldly income at the mercy of a bank or insurance com-
  1086
  pany, or of some other person who has no rhyme or reason for getting it at all.
  That is the position, and it is for that reason that I have put down this somewhat lengthy new Clause, which is necessarily a technical one. I must explain very briefly how it operates. In the first place, the Clause gives to the court a power to give protection to a married woman in the sort of circumstances which I have described if either she or her trustees apply to the court for that protection; in other words, it is only where a married woman or her trustees actually go to the court and ask for protection that that protection can be given at all.
  In the second place, the form of protection that is given is that provided under Section 33 of the Trustee Act. It is not, however, a life-time protection, but merely that kind of protection which she would have enjoyed under the restraint which is being removed. She is getting protection for the period of her existing marriage, not for any period after her husband's death and not for any period of re-marriage. It is placing her almost exactly in the same position in which she would have been regarding protection if this Bill had never passed.
  I imagine that the Government's principal objection to such a Clause would be that it might delay the coming into operation of the Bill itself, and, for that reason, there are some rather technical provisions contained in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the Clause to prevent any such delay occurring.
  10.15 p.m.
  I will not weary the Committee by going into those provisions. Perhaps I should say that the application has to be made within a period of six months of the passing of the Bill. In other words, after six months no one can apply to the court for any protection at all. During that period of six months in which it is still open to the woman or her trustees to apply, the woman can deal with her property if she merely asks the trustees to give her a certificate to the effect that they themselves do not intend to apply to the court. In that way it is quite clear that any life interest affected by this Bill could be dealt with immediately after it becomes an Act provided that the woman was anxious to deal with it and the trustees were not intending to take action under the Clause. I do not think

  1087
  it can be said that the Clause is any serious impediment to the general principle of the Bill. It will, however, cover quite a number of extremely hard cases, and I sincerely hope that the Government will see their way to accepting the Clause.
  The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the hon. Baronet for the way in which he has put the new Clause and I at once recognise that it concerns a serious proposal. We recognised—I will not say when we first saw it on the Order Paper—because we had considered the possibility of some such device as this before, that the proposal involved a serious effort to substitute another kind of restriction in certain cases for the one which the Bill proposes to abolish. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and I have given it the most serious consideration. Not being a Chancery lawyer myself, we have taken the best Chancery advice open to us in the matter, and I have now listened most carefully to the arguments put forward by the hon. Baronet. In the result ! must say—and I have risen at once to say it, although I have no wish to curtail the Debate, because I thought it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicated at once what was the position of the Government in the matter—having given the matter the most careful and thoughtful consideration, the Government are firmly opposed to this new Clause which really seeks to impose upon married women restrictions as to the manner in which they deal with their property which would sometimes be much more disagreeable to them than the restraint which it is the object of this Bill to remove.
  I cannot help thinking that the proposal involved in the new Clause arises from a confusion between the object of a restraint on anticipation and a protective trust which was apparent during the Second Reading Debate, and which, if I may say so with great respect to the hon. Baronet, has been indicated in the remarks he has just addressed to the Committee. It is really all based on the assumption that the settlor or testator, had he not been able to impose the kind of restraint which we are now abolishing by this Bill, would have taken the other course and imposed a protective trust on his daughter, or whoever it might be.
  1088
  But we are satisfied that that assumption is really only true in a comparatively small proportion of the total number of cases that will be affected by this Bill, and I venture to think that almost anybody with experience of the matter will bear me out in that view. I hope I do not appear to be delivering a lecture on this, but it is a bit technical and it is a Chancery matter on which I have had to obtain instructions. Basically, the object of a restraint on anticipation and of the protective trust device which is involved in this new Clause are really quite different. The restraint on anticipation arises only on marriage and continues only during marriage.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth Sir H. Lucas-Tooth rose —
  The Attorney-General: I know what the hon. Member is going to say, that this protective trust he contemplates in his proposed new Clause would assist in some way, but I am dealing with the basic idea of the two things and say that testators or settlors would rarely have chosen a protective trust if the matter had been open to them at that time, as indeed it was. The object of the proposed restraint was to protect the wife "from the kicks and kisses" of the husband, as it was put in the old cases, at a time when those were more usual than today. But I made the point on Second Reading and make it most emphatically again on the very best advice I can obtain on the matter, that it was not then regarded and never accepted by the Chancery courts simply as a device against creditors to protect a woman against parties who might be her creditors, or her husband's creditors.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the restraint against anticipation does not operate against creditors?
  The Attorney-General: I am not saying that, but its object was never a device to protect against creditors. As it has developed it has had that result for a period but the hon. Baronet will agree that that is really fortuitous and the whole basis on which the device was intended and accepted by the Chancery courts was as a protection against the husband who was then able to exert a rather stronger influence than husbands can exert nowadays to get the wife's money from her. We have discussed the theory that the

  1089
  wife's money belongs to the husband by the old Common law and the whole manner in which Chancery stepped in. I do not think anyone who has studied the matter would deny the proposition that the courts would never have adopted this device if its object had been to enable a married woman to cheat her creditors. The protective trust on the other hand was a device which was intended partly with the object in view of protecting the married woman, or man, or whoever it may be, against creditors. It usually had, hut need not have, although it would have under the proposed new Clause, no reference whatever to the position of married women as such. Insofar as this new Clause would enable some married women to continue to defeat, or delay, or cheat their creditors—
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: How?
  The Attorney-General: Of course it would. If the hon. Member read the speech by Lord Simonds in another place he would see very clear indications of it. I do not profess to be such a great authority on the matter. Of course, it enables married women who run up bills—
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Where does it say that? Will the Attorney-General state where that is said?
  The Attorney-General: Where what is said? I do not expect the hon. Member to put that in his new Clause. He would show even greater myopia than I would expect from hon. Members opposite if he put those words in the new Clause, but that is the result. It enables a married woman apparently in possession of income of her own to incur credit from trades people and, when the bills come round and the trades people attempt to get payment from the married woman, to say, "This is subject to a protective trust. We shall bring the trust into operation and you will not be able to touch a penny of my money."
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that in another place Lord Simonds said that a Clause such as mine would have the result of defeating creditors. Will he refer to any such passage?
  The Attorney-General: Lord Simonds was referring to the effect of the restraint
  1090
  on anticipation. The effect of the protective trust is far more in that direction. That is the whole object of it. The hon. Member is not being very frank if he does not agree and does not inform the Committee that what happens under a protective trust is that the moment the beneficiary goes bankrupt, the moment a third party gets some title to the income, the operative clauses of the trust come into effect and the beneficiary ceases to have any title to any part of the income at all, with the result that the creditor cannot touch a penny of the money. That is the object of it.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is the effect of restraint on anticipation.
  The Attorney-General: Certainly; I was saying that in so far as this device would enable some married women to continue—that was the word I used—delaying or defeating or cheating their creditors, I have no sympathy at all with the proposal. The hon. Member gave the instance, no doubt at first sight a rather distressing instance, of a lady, with a child, who had guaranteed her husband's overdraft, but I must say that that leaves my withers completely unwrung. Look at what it really means. What is the position? Does that case really afford any conceivable ground for creating a protective trust? See what happens.
  Either with the existing restraint on anticipation in the case of a lady or with this new device of the protective trust, the lady, knowing that she has protection, guarantees her husband's overdraft, informing the bank, as I understand—and I make no point on that—that there is this protection in existence. What is the result? During the lifetime of her husband, whilst his strong right arm is there to support her, whilst he is able to go on earning money in order to keep his wife and child, even if he is bankrupt, this protection will continue in operation. The moment the husband dies, when this unhappy lady is left alone and a widow, having no resources with which to support her child, the protection goes and the bank comes in and seizes the whole Of the money.
  What possible sense can there be in providing a device of that kind? I venture to suggest that one would be doing a very grave disservice to that lady if one provided her with a device so illusory, so

  1091
  much a delusion and a snare, that it would lead her to the view that her money was safe only to find, at the very moment when she needed it most, when her husband had died, that the bank was able to seize the lot. I cannot think that is the case the hon. Member puts forward. The protection of this, if I may call it so, fickle and fortuitous device goes at exactly the moment the married woman is most likely to need it—when her husband dies and she has no other resources of income.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: May I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the answer to that point? The position is this: the lady in question was in the act of negotiating with the bank for making application to lift some part of the restraint in order to arrive at a compromise solution. With the introduction of this Bill the bank are, not unnaturally, quite unwilling to go forward with the compromise.
  The Attorney-General: The protective trust will not remedy that position in any respect. The protective trust will go on: she will be able to make her application to the court and, assuming it is granted, the protective trust will come into operation. The bank may or may not agree to enter into some compromise in regard to the matter. The trustees may or may not agree to enter into some compromise in regard to the matter, and one has to consider their position in the matter now. The position is likely to be, in that case, that it will remain subject to the protective trust; her money will be protected until her husband dies. The protective trust will then come to an end and the bank will come down on the whole of this money. If I may say so, with great respect to the hon. Baronet, it is not a sensible arrangement to propose for this lady whose case has been drawn to his attention.
  Let me return, if I may, to the assumption which the hon. Baronet makes for his new Clause—that by some kind of supernatural omniscience it is doing what the testator or the settlor would have done if he had thought about it. I agree it is possible in a small minority of cases—
  10.30 p.m.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I had not made that point and I do not.
  The Attorney-General: I really thought that was the whole basis of this Clause. If it is not so, I am sure it is my fault. I completely misconceived that. If we are not doing something which trustees or settlors would have wished to do, in these circumstances what conceivable authority have we for imposing this disagreeable restraint on married women at all? Who are we to intervene in this matter against the married woman unless we intervene on the assumption that we are doing something that the grandfathers or fathers of these women would have wish to do? If the hon. Baronet does not put that argument forward, then I would submit that the whole case for substituting this restrictive and protective device for the restraint upon anticipation must go completely. Consider what this device does. In many cases it would impose a much more onerous restraint on married women than the one which it is the object of this Bill to impose and it will impose that restraint not at the will of the father or settlor, but at the will of a complete stranger—at the instance of a trustee, perhaps of a trustee corporation, perhaps of an ill-disposed trustee relative, who may know very little about the family circumstances of the beneficiary. It imposes that more onerous restriction simply because the beneficiary happens for the time to be a married woman.
  Under a restraint on anticipation, although the creditors are defeated and the married woman cannot anticipate her income, she does continue at least to receive the whole of her income as her absolute property, and year after year as her income comes in she can do exactly what she chooses with it. Not so under the protective trust device of the new Clause. When the operative clauses of that protective trust come into force, when a married woman goes bankrupt or a third party attempts to levy execution in order to get payment for some debt she has incurred, then the married woman is deprived not only of any right she might have had to capital or anticipation of income, but she is deprived of her right to the actual income itself. From that time forward she is not entitled to receive a single penny. She is left in leading strings, at the mercy of trustees not of her own choice, who may be utterly unsympathetic towards her and

  1093
  know nothing of her family circumstances and her particular needs. She may possibly be left at the mercy of trustees who are ill-disposed relatives, who think that by imposing the protective trust and diminishing the amount which at their discretion they can pay to the married woman, they will get greater benefits for other beneficiaries.
  I think that most trustees would say—and I have made some inquiries about this—that it was a most odious burden to impose on them, that they should have to go to the court and argue that they know better than the married woman how she should deal with her property. In so many cases, especially where it is a big trust corporation, what knowledge have they of the real circumstances in which a married woman is placed and of her real needs? We think it is quite intolerable, at any rate in cases that operate against the will of the married woman, that this kind of restraint should be imposed on a married woman against her will. The argument does not apply to the provision, which perhaps is unique, that the beneficiary herself might apply for protection in order to defeat her creditors.
  There is one other aspect of this matter, and this is the one I venture to put forward, and I put it forward on advice after a good deal of consultation as really the most formidable and most decisive objection to the hon. Baronet's new Clause. It proposes to vest a wholly new discretionary jurisdiction in the Chancery judges, and it proposes to vest that discretionary jurisdiction in those judges without giving them the slightest guidance, without giving them a single clue how that discretion is to be exercised. I have the very highest regard and respect for the judges of the Chancery Division. They do in various matters already possess a discretionary jurisdiction. I do not think they like exercising it, but they do so to the best of their ability.
  I would not. for my own part, express any view against even the extension of that discretionary jurisdiction unless I was satisfied that objection to it would commend itself to the best Chancery opinion. But it ought to be realised by the Committee that the exercise of a discretionary jurisdiction in cases of this kind is really a very difficult thing. It
  1094
  is not right to impose on Chancery judges who, after all are human beings in the end, the impossible task of forming an opinion, often on conflicting evidence, often on imperfect evidence, because, as the hon. Baronet will agree, one never gets more difficult cases, cases in which more bitter hostility is aroused than these cases of family disputes. It really is too much to ask the judges in cases of that kind, in cases of most uncertain evidence as to the character, conduct and propensities of the married woman concerned, to impose a protective trust of this kind. It is not right to ask them to decide in a particular case whether or not a married woman should be deprived throughout her married life of the right of receiving and disposing of her property, or of any part of it in the way she thinks best.
  After all, married women are the best able to decide what is the best way of dealing with their own property. To vest powers of that kind in the courts would, we think, inevitably result in a great deal of inequality of treatment between one beneficiary and another, in many cases a great deal of hardship, and in some, injustice. We agree with the view expressed, I rather think on both sides of the House, I am not sure, but I think on both sides of the House on Second Reading, that it is undesirable to extend these discretionary jurisdictions in that way, particularly in this difficult class of family dispute.
  I come to the end of what I am afraid is a rather long speech. The exercise of this discretionary jurisdiction in matters of this kind, unguided by set rules or principles as it inevitably would be, is rather like the exercise of the principles of equity of old. The hon. Baronet will remember what the great John Selden said about that. It applies exactly to the kind of jurisdiction which he is seeking to establish today. At the end of the sixteenth century he said:
  "Equity is a Roguish thing: for law we have a measure."
  For law, that means where there are actual rules laid down by the Common law, which can be applied—
  "For law we have a measure, we know what to trust to; Equity is according to the Conscience of him that is Chancellor"
  In those days it was the Chancellors who exercised the discretionary equitable

  1095
  jurisdiction. Now, that discretionary jurisdiction is vested in the Chancery Court, and the old jurisdiction is covered by precedent. But what is proposed now is a new jurisdiction.
  "Equity is according to the Conscience of him that is Chancellor, and as that is larger or narrower, so is Equity. 'Tis all one as if they should make the Standard for the measure which we call a ' Foot,' a Chancellor's Foot; what an uncertain Measure that would be! One Chancellor has a long Foot, another, a short Foot, a Third an indifferent Foot. 'Tis the same thing in the Chancellor's Conscience."
  And that is the kind of jurisdiction to which the hon. Baronet would wish to make over these unhappy married women.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has, as he himself has admitted, delivered a long speech in reply to the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth); but, despite that long speech, at times full of vigour and vehemence, he has not dealt with the points behind that Clause. I must admit that I have no large knowledge of the Chancery practice, but I must say that, listening to his answer, I do not think that he has really answered the case put forward. He has spoken of protective trusts, and the way in which they can be used by married women to defeat credit. This Bill, one would have thought, was designed to abolish protective trusts; but it does not, and if they are bad things now, they will continue to be bad things when this Bill has been passed into law.
  He spoke an awful lot, I thought, of defeating creditors; but the case put by my hon. Friend was that of where the bank had taken as security, or some charge on the wife's income, anything which the hon. Baronet said they knew was subject to restraint on anticipation. In some cases, if the restraint remained, the bank might be fortunate in getting a large security owing to the death of the husband, or of divorce. But this Bill, in that particular case, is automatically enlarging the security the bank has got, to the detriment of the maried woman. There is no doubt at all that that is the effect of this Measure. That is what my hon. Friend tried to deal with in this new Clause. Does the learned Attorney-General really think that it is right to confuse the issue on that? It is confusing the issue to talk of defeating creditors
  1096
  when this is enlarging the security which the bankers receive. One does not know how many cases of this sort there are; but I feel great sympathy with that married woman when she finds the effect of this Bill is to penalise her and give the bank a great deal more than it thought it would get when it took the security.
  That is the sort of case to which this House should give protection, and that is what the new Clause seeks to do. I do not see why it should not work fairly and equitably. The learned Attorney-General did not pay enough attention to it; he spoke glibly of ill-disposed trustees. Here I must disclose an interest because I am a trustee of several trusts but I do not think any of the beneficiaries consider that I am ill-disposed; but this particular woman, to whom my hon. Friend referred would, of her own initiative, be able to apply to the courts and say that a removal of this restriction is detrimental to her.
  Does the learned Attorney-General think that any of His Majesty's Judges of the Chancery Court would have any difficulty in coming to that conclusion? Then she would have to show, and I quote the words of the Clause,
  "that it is just and equitable so to do."
  That is, to retain protection, she would have to say that. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that she would have any difficulty if she established that she had given the security to the bank and if it turned out that it was subject to a restraint on anticipation, that she would have any difficulty in convincing the court that some protection should remain in respect of that security? I do not believe she would. I do not believe that application would meet with any opposition at all.
  10.45 p.m.
  I myself think the court would hold in that case that the restraint on anticipation has gone by Act of Parliament, but it is by this new Clause inserted in the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, that we are enabled to provide the protection which should obviously be provided. We are able to do so because Parliament put a Clause in the Bill to give us power to do so. I believe myself that power is most desirable. I do not believe that the courts would find any difficulty in distinguishing between cases where it was just and

  1097
  equitable to provide protection and those cases where it was not. I do not believe that the application of this particular new Clause would lead to a large number of family quarrels or anything of that sort. I find it hard to realise that.
  I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has done scant justice to the point that lies behind this new Clause and I would ask him, even now, to give further consideration to it, because there are cases, such as the one my hon. Friend mentioned, where it is right that some protection should remain in the interests of the married woman, not with the object of defrauding or defeating creditors, but with the object of securing that creditors do not get an increased security for whatever money they have advanced.
  I have made my position on this Bill clear. I have not opposed, at any time, in anything I have said the principle of giving some relief to the restraint on anticipation, but I take very strongly the view that some protection is required in cases such as my hon. Friend has mentioned. It was because I thought there should be some relief that I did not vote on the last Division but unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman can come further to meet this particular point put by my hon. Friend, I must say I shall with the greatest pleasure vote with him—and this is a free vote on this side of the House—if he goes to a Division on this matter.
  Mr. Gage: I must say I am surprised that the Government are not accepting this new Clause. If it had no other merit, it would be one of the first amendments drawn by a Chancery lawyer that is readily understandable by all practitioners in the King's Bench, such as myself, and anyone else I was disappointed and very surprised at some of the arguments advanced by the Attorney-General against it. He said, when he was referring to the fact that this would try to interpret the wishes of a testator, "Who are we to intervene?" That has been the point of the whole opposition to this matter, that we have thought, on this side of the House, that we should not intervene in affairs under the private disposition of testators.
  But we have intervened already. The Government have intervened against our advice and I think it is necessary to consider the results that may accrue. I
  1098
  always think it profitable on occasions like this to go into various types of hypothetical cases that one can encounter. If we had enough Chancery lawyers here. I have no doubt that we could go on all night on different sorts of cases of which they have had experience at different times.
  The basic fact is that there will be cases where there is hardship when the restraint is lifted. I do not think any hon. Member in the House is going to deny that there will not be such hardship in certain cases. I am not one of those people who say that it is necessarily a hardship when the restraint is lifted that the creditors can get at the women's capital. I think it was one of the disadvantageous results of the restraint on anticipation. What is suggested here, and it is the whole point of the amendment is that the trustees will be able to go to the courts. Judges of the Chancery Division are not likely to impose a protective trust if they think its purpose is to defeat the woman's creditors.
  I think the case put by my hon. Friend, the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), in which the husband was in fact bankrupt, is a good one, but there might be cases where the wife's income might be attached for debts for which she was in no way responsible. There may be cases where the husband was able to get at the wife's capital, and the right people to consider all this are the trustees. They are, after all, placed there for that purpose. The duties of trustes are onerous and trying and they get little reward. They have to carry out these duties, although it may be unpleasant for them to do so. But it is no reason for saying that they shall not have to do them. If they go to the courts the cases can be considered on their merits, in a way in which we here cannot possibly consider the merits of all the cases. They can be brought to a Chancery judge, and if he feels it is not a case in which the wife should have a discretionary trust allowed on her he can say so. and he can say that the trustees should pay the costs if he thinks they should not have brought the case. There is that protection to prevent the trustees from bringing frivolous claims. It is important to leave the matter to the judge.
  I think the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Donovan) was

  1099
  the first person to mention this matter. I was impressed 'by what he said when he suggested that there might be a Clause which should allow the trustee to keep the restraint on anticipation. That would have been out of Order on the Committee stage, but I think this new Clause will do very much the same thing in just as good a way. The final argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, which he said was his strongest, was, if I may say so with respect, his worst. The argument he advanced was that it would be an unpleasant duty for a judge to have to carry out But many judges have unpleasant duties to carry out, and we are not here merely to remove them because they are unpleasant duties. After all, Chancery judges have plenty of discretionary duties which they must dislike.
  The Attorney-General: With respect, I did not say it was an unpleasant duty. I do not think that arose. Judges have to perform unpleasant duties, but what I said was that it was a difficult duty which they could not perform without inequality as between beneficiary and beneficiary and I quoted the celebrated dictum of John Selden.
  Mr. Gage: Considering all the beneficiaries is a very difficult duty, but there are other duties just as difficult and unpleasant where a Chancery judge has to make a decision in his discretion, such as where he has to deprive a married woman of the custody of her child, one which I am sure they all detest. However, that is no reason for saying that they shall not have to do it any longer, and it is no reason in cases such as this for not imposing such a duty. This is a modest and reasonable proposal, and one which all sides—
  Mrs. Manning: No.
  Mr. Gage: I always respect the views of the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). I hope she will believe me when I say that this is just as much a benefit for the married women as for anyone else.
  Mrs. Manning: I do not think it is, because it introduces a degree of inequity which no Chancery judge, however objective he was. could overcome. That is the real point which the Attorney-
  1100
  General made, not the point of difficulty which the hon. Gentleman is trying to make now. The point is the difficulty of being able to do this with equity between case and case.
  Mr. Gage: I do not think that is so. One has to remember that the married woman in this case has already for some time had to endure restraint upon anticipation. All we are saying now is that the trustee shall in certain circumstances be allowed to come to a judge and say that it would be highly undesirable in the interests of the lady to have it raised. If he is wrong in that the judge will say so: if he is right the judge will not allow it to be done. That is all that is being done, and in those circumstances I hope that this proposal will receive genera] support.
  Mr. H. Strauss: I only intervene because I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman misled the Committee by quoting the celebrated dictum of John Selden on the vagueness and elasticity of the rules of Chancery at the time that the dictum was pronounced. The right hon. and learned Gentleman took advantage of addressing a mainly lay assembly, because he well knows that since that date the rules of equity have become at least as rigid as, and, in the view of most of us, a good deal more rigid than, the rules of common law.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman accuses me of seeking to mislead the Committee, but he is surely doing precisely that thing now. The Clause proposes to introduce a new discretionary jurisdiction which the Chancery judges will have to discharge. It imposes on the Chancery judges exactly the same kind of discretionary jurisdiction which was imposed on the Chancellors at the beginning of their equitable jurisdiction. In the course of 500 years I have no doubt that the Chancery judges would build up the same body of rules and principles for the exercise of this discretion as they have built up for the exercise of their original equitable jurisdiction. This proposal puts the Chancery judges in respect of this matter back at the position of the Chancellors in the day of John Selden with no principles to guide them. If the hon. and learned Member had thought of a body of rules and principles which he had included in the

  1101
  Clause to guide judges, I would not make that point, but it is impossible to fix such a body.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is what was done in the Family Inheritance Act.
  Mr. Strauss: I have much greater respect for the forensic and legal abilities of the right hon. and learned Gentleman than to think that he has any seriousness whatever in the speech which he has just delivered. He knows perfectly well that this is giving to the Chancery judges nothing at all comparable to that about which Selden spoke. He knows that for hundreds of years the jurisdiction of the Chancery judges has been closely bound by precedent. He knows perfectly well that, if this Amendment were adopted, the Chancery judges would soon find examples of the practice of their courts which they thought should govern them in this instance. It is quite fantastic to suggest that it would give the Chancery judges any such freedom as they had several centuries ago.
  11.0 p.m.
  There is really no justification for that at all. The truth of the matter is, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman must know, that for many years now the Chancery judges have considered themselves almost more strictly bound by precedent than the common lawyer. In perhaps the most famous of all modern decisions—Donoghue v. Stevenson—as was pointed out to me by a great common law judge now no longer alive
  —it was the two Chancery judges who felt they must dissent. It is therefore not true that the Chancery judges are less bound by precedent. That answers the point of the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). I appreciate her sincerity, but I would assure her that she was misled, I think justifiably, by the quite unjustifiable argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Donovan: On the Second Reading of this Bill it is quite true I did ask that this kind of proposal might be examined because I had in view the type of case, not where a creditor should be defeated, but where a married woman' might have a husband of this sort—and there are indeed husbands of this sort about only too anxious to get hold of the wife's money and spend it in a wasteful and unwise way. I had hoped it would be possible to find some sort of protection against that sort of husband, as envisaged in this amendment, allowing her to go to court and ask that the restraint be maintained. As I gather from the Attorney-General the proposal has been considered exhaustively, not unsympathetically, and after listening to him I think the objections do outweigh the advantages. I am sorry that it should be so but I do not feel that I can vote in favour of it after what he has said.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 170.

  Division No. 294.]

  AYES

  [11.5 P.m

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Turton, R. H.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth and Mr. Gage.

  NOES

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

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

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Deer, G.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Bramall, E. A.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Dobbie, W.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Donovan, T.

  Austin, H. Lewis

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

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Champion, A. J.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Bacon, Miss A

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Ede. Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Baird, J.

  Cooks, F. S.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Balfour, A.

  Collindridge, F.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Barton, C.

  Collins, V. J.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

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

  Berry, H.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Follick, M

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Cullen, Mrs.

  Format, J. C.

  Binns, J.

  Daines, P.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Boardman, H.

  Davits. Edward (Burslem)

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  Bowden, H. W.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Gibbins, J.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Gibson, C. W

  McLeavy, F.

  Smith, C (Colchester)

  Gilzean, A

  Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

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

  Glanville, J E. (Consett)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Snow, J. W.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Griffiths, W. D. (MOM Side)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir. Frank

  Guy, W. H.

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Sparks, J. A.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Medland, H. M.

  Steele, T.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Melfish, R. J.

  Stewart. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Hardman, D. R.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Harrison, J.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Morley, R.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Haworth, J.

  Mort, D. L.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Moyle, A.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Harbison, Miss M.

  Murray, J. D.

  Tiffany, S.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

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

  Hobson, C. R.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Warkley, W. N.

  Holman, P.

  O'Brien, T.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Weitzman, D.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Hoy, J.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Hubbard, T.

  Pargiter, G. A.

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

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Pearson, A.

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

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

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

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Wilkes, L.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Randall, H. E.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

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

  Ranger, J.

  Williams, D J. (Neath)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Keenan, W.

  Rhodes, H.

  Willis, E.

  Kinley, J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Wills, Mrs E. A

  Layers, S.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras. N.)

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Levy, B. W.

  Royle, C.

  Woods, G. S.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Sargood, R.

  Yates, V. F.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Logan, D. G.

  Sharp, Granville

  Longden, F.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lyne, A. W.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Mr. Popplewell and

  MoGhee, H. G.

  Simmons, C. J

  Mr. George Wallace.

  First and Second Schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  GRAMMAR SCHOOL PLACES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell]
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton): On 27th October I asked the Minister of Education
  "whether he is aware that there are at present vacant places at the Thirsk, Easingwold, and Yorebridge Grammar Schools in the area of the North Riding of Yorkshire; that in the neighbourhood of these grammar schools there is at present a lack of secondary modern schools which is causing grave overcrowding; and what action he proposes to take to secure the intentions of the Education Act, 1944, are fulfilled in these areas."
  In his reply the Minister said that
  "owing to a decline in the local child population there are at present not enough suitable pupils to fill all places at these three grammar schools."
  and he went on to say there was no grave overcrowding in other schools in
  1104
  the neighbourhood. He ended by saying that he was satisfied that the intentions of the Education Act were being fulfilled by the local education authority's plans for new secondary schools. In reply to a supplementary question, he said:
  "This is the only case of which I know where vacancies in the secondary schools are not filled immediately."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1495.]
  A very remarkable situation is disclosed. In the whole of this country, on the witness of the Minister—and he must know the position—all the grammar schools are filled, except in these three cases. All three cases come within the area of the same local education authority and it would appear that the onus is on the Minister of Education to show that the local education authority concerned is not acting unreasonably. After all, under Section 68 of the Education Act, 1944, he has on his shoulders the responsibility of seeing that local education authorities act reasonably in the discharge of their functions under the Act, and, if they fail, to intervene. Tonight I want to put the case for my constituents and also for those of my

  1105
  hon. and gallant Friend, the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale), who is concerned in one case, to show that in fact the Act is being administered unreasonably by the local education authority for that area.
  Mr. Spearman: It also applies to Whitby School in the North Riding.
  Mr. Turton: I can well believe it. That strengthens the case. That means there are four grammar schools in this one education authority which have vacant places. What are the facts? In 1946, Thirsk Grammar School had 150 pupils. At the present time they have 116, a deficiency of 34 pupils in three years. At Easing-wold, they had 89 pupils in 1946. This year they have 82, a deficiency of seven. I am informed on good authority that at Easingwold this is room for another ten pupils, not seven. I have not the 1946 figures for Yorebridge, because it is outside my constituency, but in 1939 there were 121 pupils. This year they have 94, which is a deficiency of 28.
  In his reply to me, the Minister talked about a decline in the rural child population. Let me give the figures of the total population in those areas in 1946 and 1949. In the rural district of Thirsk, the population has increased by 460 in those three years. In Easingwold, the population has increased by 390. In Yorebridge there are rather different circumstances, because there are two rural districts involved, but combining the two, in three years there has been an increase of 338. I agree that that is the total population and not the child population. It is difficult to get the exact figures for child population at the present time, but I have made a careful examination of the statistics of sex and age of population supplied by the Registrar-General in 1947, which are now, of course, two years back, and compared these with the figures for 1931. There is a decline in the child population in Thirsk of 8½ per cent. and in Easingwold of 4 per cent. Yet, when we compare that decline with the figures for rural districts in other parts of Britain, it is a much smaller decline. Let me instance one or two of the counties down the east side of Britain. In the East Riding the decline was 15 per cent.; in the three counties of Lincolnshire it varied between 8 and 17 per cent.; in Norfolk it was 12 per cent.; in West
  1106
  Suffolk, 16 per cent., and in East Suffolk, 19 per cent.
  But the real case is not these figures, but whether there is in fact overcrowding in neighbouring schools. In regard to Thirsk, I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to deny that at Thirsk Senior School at the present time there is grave overcrowding, and that the headmaster of that school will himself admit there are at the school a considerable number of children who could well benefit by grammar school education.
  Let me give the instance of another school only four miles out of Thirsk, about which I have been in communication with the Minister of Education—namely, Knayton. At that school in 1945 here were 40 girls and infants. In May, 1949, there were 74 girls and infants, and at the present time there are 96 children being taught by one headmaster and two women teachers. That is not right. When a school which in 1945 had something like 60 pupils suddenly has thrust on it 36 in addition, I think that would satisfy any hon. Member that there is grave overcrowding.
  I have been in communication with the Minister of Education on conditions at Easingwold Church of England School, complaining about overcrowding. Let me now quote the words of the Minister of Education in a letter which he wrote to me only last year. He wrote,
  "On the question of overcrowding of the Church of England School at Easingwold, the children are divided into four classes, as you say, and are housed as follows: 44 in a classroom of 445 square feet; 38 in a room of 392 square feet, and 26 in a room of 216 square feet. I agree that those conditions are not good, especially when compared with the building on which I presume you base your reference to the work done. It is unfortunately true that if we were to condemn them as intolerable we would in fact have to condemn many other schools."
  My purpose tonight is not to condemn them, but to ask that the position should be remedied by sending those children who are capable of it to the grammar school at Easingwold.
  Let us deal with the question of lowering standards. With you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not think I need talk about the standard of education of Easingwold Grammar School, because Easingwold is proud that one who was educated at the school is now occupying the position which you occupy in

  1107
  the House of Commons. We are very proud of that fact. But let me deal with Thirsk. The last time the school certificate examination was taken at Thirsk, 20 children sat for it. Every one of them passed. Of those 20 children, 12 had won an entrance scholarship, and eight had failed in the entrance examination but had gone into the school as fee-payers.
  I find that these eight children had an average of credits of 5.5 per child. That was, in fact, only.3 less than the average of the whole 20. Under the present way in which the North Riding Education Authority administers the provisions for entering a grammar school, those eight children would not have been at the school, and there would have been that number of empty places. That, I believe, is wrong.
  At Thirsk there is a boy who has just taken the Higher School Certificate who, in the entrance examination failed to get an entrance scholarship. How far he failed the Minister of Education could tell me but it would be improper for me to know or to tell the House of Commons. My case is that the Education Act, what we call the Butler Act of 1944, which promised secondary education for all, is not being carried out as it should be in the North Riding of Yorkshire. I ask the Minister of Education, or the Parliamentary Secretary, tonight, to put that right.
  I know that there have to be cuts at present in the building programme, but is it sensible, when there are these grammar schools, when there are the staff and the buildings, to leave them empty and keep the primary schools overcrowded merely because a child, at the age of 11, fails by a point or two in some intelligence test; and when, with good education at a good grammar school he could well get the School Certificate. I believe I would be betraying my responsibility to my constituents were I not to beg the Parliamentary Secretary to intervene in this matter.
  Mrs. Leah Manning: Before the hon. Member sits down, may I ask him two questions. Has he any clue at all to the reasons for what seems to be a quite incredible and unique position in England today? Secondly, does he know whether the parents of this area
  1108
  would be prepared to take advantage of this education if they could have it made available?
  Mr. Turton: Dealing with the second question first—I have been appealed to and asked to take action by the Parents' Association. I have interviewed parents on more than one occasion. As to what reason the local education authority have for their attitude, I do not know; I can only suggest they are being directed in a most rigid and unfriendly manner.
  11.26 p.m.
  Mr. Corlett: I do not want to delay the Parliamentary Secretary, but I am indeed sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have seen fit to speak as he has spoken of one of the most progressive and enlightened education authorities in this country—his own. I have known that authority for nearly 30 years, and most who know it were always surprised at the difference during the period from the early 'thirties, when it was reactionary and nearly the most backward of education authorities, to the last five years in the 'thirties, when it jumped almost to the forefront. It is not reasonable for the hon. Member to say that this authority is rigid, and not acting fairly to children who are eligible to go to the grammar school.
  In 1935, this particular authority, as the hon. Member must know, startled the country with its development programme for setting up senior schools. He knows that there is Redcar, Scalby, New Earswick, and Northallerton—some of the finest senior schools in this country, even before the Education Act; and had it not been for the war, this whole area would have probably been completely reorganised by this time. They have done their job excellently, but I will leave to my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, the question of avoidable overcrowding, which I very much doubt.
  In regard to the vacant places, and the rigidity of which he speaks, the hon. Gentleman opposite must know that this authority set up, under the Education Act of 1944, an examination board which, in my opinion, is a model for examination boards in this country. It has on it representatives of grammar schools, primary schools, the Ministry, the authority's officials, and of the authority

  1109
  itself. I know the work of that examination board. It has secured what I believe has been secured by few other authorities in this country—complete equality of opportunity for secondary education for every child in the area, whether it be in a one-teacher or a two-teacher school, or a big urban school. That, hon. Members will agree, is a triumph in itself for a completely democratically elected board. Secondly, it has set for entrance such a wide standard, that it has increased the number of children in the grammar schools, under the Butler Act by 10 per cent. since 1939. It is the 11 plus group with which we have to deal and it is that group with which the hon. Member opposite should be most concerned. 16.8 per cent. of the children of this group in the North Riding are receiving grammar school education. In the particular area of which he speaks—the Yorebridge area—the figure is 19 per cent., and that is a remarkably high percentage of children in a rural area receiving grammar school education. This authority has pursued the wise policy of seeing that no child shall, if it is thought fit for grammar school education by the examination board, be denied that education.
  There is, therefore, not a single child in the North Riding that is eligible for grammar school education by the set standard who is not receiving it. The examination has been so well devised because the authority were determined that every child needing grammar school education should have it, and where there is not sufficient accommodation, such as at Saltburn Girls' High School, they have immediately provided increased accommodation. They have never taken the view that the number of children going into the grammar schools shall be determined by accommodation, but rather that no child shall be denied grammar school education because of lack of accommodation.
  This, when all is said and done, is a Tory-dominated Education Committee and one for which I have the greatest admiration. It has had a very fine chairman for many, many years in Sir Bedford Dorman, who I am sure will be most hurt by some of the remarks which have been made tonight, and a very able, energetic, and imaginative chief education officer. I cannot help wondering
  1110
  really what the hon. Member's forbears, who were really very distinguished local government men, would think if they had heard his speech tonight in which the hon. Member is urging interference by a central Government Department in the work of a very efficient local governing body.
  Above all, I cannot understand how he will explain to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) how he is daring to suggest that this Education Authority should lower its standard for admission to grammar schools, because that is what he is seeking to do. Yet nobody in this House has pleaded more for maintaining the quality of grammar school entrants than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden, and we have been delighted to hear him say it. It is really shocking at this stage, with an authority with such a fine record, that the hon. Member should come forward and suggest that this authority should be compelled to lower the standard of admission for children into grammar schools. I can think of only one reason, which is that the General Election is getting very near.
  11.32 p.m.
  Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I did not propose to intervene in this Debate, but the whole House ought to be grateful to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) for raising this point. There is no question of party politics in this business at all. The North Riding is very perturbed about the situation and now the hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett) tries to bring in party advantage which never entered the mind of any Member.
  Mr. Corlett: I do not know why the hon. Baronet should get so excited. Did I not say it was a Tory Committee? Did I not say it was a fine Committee? Did I not give it every possible bouquet from a political point of view? I am merely trying to understand why the hon. Member should bring this matter forward in this House when he could just as easily bring it forward—
  Sir T. Dugdale: Because there is great disquiet in the North Riding about the whole position.
  Mr. Corlett: There may be great disquiet although I think it is being gravely exaggerated and I regret that the hon.

  1111
  Member has seen fit to pillory his own very efficient local education authority in this matter tonight.
  11.33 p.m.
  Mr. Spearman: In my constituency, in the town of Whitby, in the same education area, there is a school with eight vacancies. I do not feel at this stage, when the Government are unable to erect buildings, that it is right and proper there should be children deprived of the right of that education. I do sympathise with the education authorities who want to maintain a high standard but I very much wonder whether because a child is two points below a hundred or two points over a hundred, it can make all that difference. I feel at this time, when there is such a desperate shortage, that a more wide-minded policy should be adopted. I hope the Minister will make it clear to us that it is his wish that we shall be able to have a more liberal administration in the North Riding.
  11.34 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): I want to remind Members that this is not a party political question at all. What, in fact, matters is the education of the children.
  Sir T. Dugdale: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hardman: I want to say also that I support the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Corlett)—in two respects—firstly the excellence of the standards maintained at these three grammar schools at Thirsk, Easingwold and Yore-bridge, and secondly the excellence of the North Riding Authority, whatever its political complexion may be.
  Mr. Spearman: And the Whitby School also.
  Mr. Hardman: I was not expecting the question of the Whitby School to be raised, but I am certain from what I know of it, that its standards equal those of the other grammar schools I have already mentioned. But I am afraid I cannot agree with the figures given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk
  1112
  and Malton of the vacant places at the three grammar schools with which he has been concerned.
  At Thirsk, the entry for this autumn is 119, at Easingwold it is 82 and at Yorebridge 96, leaving the total number of vacant places at these three grammar schools this term at 17. I agree that does not answer the case put forward. In my view so long as there are these 17 vacancies we have to ask ourselves the reason why they are there. Undoubtedly and here I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for York, there is overcrowding in some of the schools. That is beside the point. Children are being taught in some schools which are overcrowded, and in some schools in which classes are too large, and we should do everything to reduce the size of classes and to help the education of children, but I am not prepared to allow any question of administrative tidiness to get in the way of the proper education of the children.
  There are these 17 vacant places. In 1939, there was overcrowding at the three grammar schools. At Thirsk, there were 133 pupils instead of the present capacity of 120. At Easingwold, there were 96 instead of 90 and at Yorebridge 121 instead of 104. I think it is agreed from information I have that some of these pupils in attendance at these three grammar schools at that time were of an academic standard which today would not merit admission to grammar schools. It is said that the grammar schools are insisting on the maintenance of the highest standards. There is an academic case to be made out for the highest possible standard of selection where the school population is there to take the test. But I must confess I am extremely dubious of the adequacy of even the finest intelligence test I have seen and investigated to decide the academic life of a child on an examination taken at the age of 11 plus. I have yet to be convinced of the complete adequacy of that test.
  The position of the local education authority in the North Riding is precisely as my hon. Friend the Member for York has said. They have created one of the finest educational tests for children at the age of 11 plus which could be found anywhere in the country. There are a variety of tests employed by a variety of authorities, and this is one of the very best so far evolved. The local education

  1113
  authority has certainly got the right ideals of grammar school academic standards, and insists on maintaining the highest standards possible. Admission to grammar schools in the North Riding compares favourably with admission in other areas—13.5 grammar school pupils per thousand of the local population in that area, while the average for England and Wales is 12.1.
  In the country generally there is no evidence that there is an excess of grammar school places over pupils. Indeed, the evidence is much to the contrary. Perhaps it is inevitable in large county areas that the problem of the odd unfilled vacancy should occur so long as local education authorities refuse, and properly refuse, to depress their admission standards for the benefit of a few. However, I have had some experience in my own local government life with these tests at 11 plus and I must say that it is extremely hard on children who are one or two marks below a certain standard
  1114
  which has been fixed, to be refused admission. Certainly I would say that from the point of view of the child it is almost criminal that where vacancies occur, and' it is a question of being one or two marks below a certain standard, those vacancies are not filled even by going a few marks below the standard.
  In answering this Debate I am prepared to admit much of what has been said on both sides of the House but from the point of view of the education of the child I believe that there should be flexibility in this matter.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Exercises, Germany (Casualties)
  Exercises, Germany (Casualties)
  Boys
  Boys
EMPLOYMENT
  Gasfitters. Glasgow (Dispute)
  Gasfitters. Glasgow (Dispute)
  Darwen
  Darwen
WAR PENSIONERS (RE-OPENED CASES)
  WAR PENSIONERS (RE-OPENED CASES)
  WAR PENSIONERS (RE-OPENED CASES)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Agricultural Tractors (Taxation)
  Agricultural Tractors (Taxation)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Greyhound Racing (Taxation)
  Greyhound Racing (Taxation)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Currency Offences (Informers' Rewards)
  Currency Offences (Informers' Rewards)
  Company Reconstructions
  Company Reconstructions
  Income Tax (Recovery Proceedings)
  Income Tax (Recovery Proceedings)
  Patent Office Journal (Advertising)
  Patent Office Journal (Advertising)
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Distribution and Amusement (Profit Statistics)
  Distribution and Amusement (Profit Statistics)
  Foreign Nationals (Income Tax)
  Foreign Nationals (Income Tax)
HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT AREA
  HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT AREA
  HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT AREA
CIVIL SERVICE
  Non-Industrial Staff
  Non-Industrial Staff
  Temporary Officers (Redundancy)
  Temporary Officers (Redundancy)
MEDICAL SCHOOLS (SELECTION OF STUDENTS)
  MEDICAL SCHOOLS (SELECTION OF STUDENTS)
  MEDICAL SCHOOLS (SELECTION OF STUDENTS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  American Films (Earnings)
  American Films (Earnings)
  Soviet Union (Debts)
  Soviet Union (Debts)
  Public Conveniences (Statistics)
  Public Conveniences (Statistics)
  Dollar Exports (Prices)
  Dollar Exports (Prices)
  Anglo-Yugoslav Negotiations
  Anglo-Yugoslav Negotiations
  Merseyside Development Area
  Merseyside Development Area
  Film Industry (Official Inquiries)
  Film Industry (Official Inquiries)
NATIONAL INSURANCE (SICKNESS BENEFIT)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (SICKNESS BENEFIT)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (SICKNESS BENEFIT)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Government Offices (Expenditure)
  Government Offices (Expenditure)
  Professional Firms (Rehabilitation Allowances)
  Professional Firms (Rehabilitation Allowances)
  ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL
  ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL
  POST OFFICE (COLLECTIONS AND DELIVERIES)
  POST OFFICE (COLLECTIONS AND DELIVERIES)
  ROYAL NAVY (VACCINATION AND INOCULATION)
  ROYAL NAVY (VACCINATION AND INOCULATION)
  NATIONAL COAL BOARD (COMPLAINTS)
  NATIONAL COAL BOARD (COMPLAINTS)
  SOUTH BANK SCHEME (BUILDING MATERIALS)
  SOUTH BANK SCHEME (BUILDING MATERIALS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) ACT, 1945
  2.35 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have the honour to present a Message from His Majesty The King, signed with his own hand. The Message is as follows:
  "I have received your Address praying that the provisions of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, he applied to Orders hereafter to be made under any of the enactments specified in the table appended to your Address. I will comply with your request."

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  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 on Thursday next for the purpose of giving the Question of the Viscount Swinton precedence over the other Orders of the Day.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Leader of the House for having taken this step and inviting your Lordships to consider this matter as the first business on Thursday, but I think it would be convenient if we cleared up exactly what the procedure will be. Normally under our procedure, if there is an unstarred Question the noble Lord in whose name it stands introduces the Question with a speech, the Minister replies and a debate follows. In this particular instance, after consultation with my friends on this side of the House and with the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, I think the most convenient course for the House would be
  1010
  for the Question which stands in my name to be formally asked by the Chief Opposition Whip and the Minister then to make his statement. If your Lordships are agreeable, I would then follow the Minister and the debate would take place. At the close of the debate either the Minister by the leave of the House —which I am sure would be given—or the Leader of the House himself would reply to the debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, I believe agrees with that course, if it is agreeable to your Lordships, and it would be convenient if we had that on record as the procedure which we should adopt on Thursday. I take it that we are to sit at 3.30 o'clock on Thursday.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I agree that that would be the more convenient procedure. We shall be meeting at 3.30 o'clock on Thursday.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  RESTORATION OF DRIVING LICENCES
  2.39 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask how many drivers of motor vehicles convicted and disqualified in the Metropolitan. Police District at magistrates' courts, quarter sessions and assizes respectively have had their licences restored during the three years ended December 31, 1948, under Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, before the expiry of the period of disqualification.]
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, no separate record is kept of applications made under Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, for the restoration of driving licences, and to obtain the information asked for would require looking through a very considerable number of individual files. The Home Secretary does not consider that at the present time it would be justifiable to allocate officers for this special research, and lie is sorry to say, therefore, that he is not in a position to give the information
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I understand his difficulties. I am a little disappointed that the figures are not available, but in the circumstances there is nothing more to be said.

  PARLIAMENT BILL
  2.40 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this matter has been before us for two years and it is therefore not easy to say anything which is likely to be fresh, but I think it is fair to say that the lapse of time justifies a few reflections upon the -matter. First, let us remind ourselves of the purpose of the Bill. It is to reduce from two years to one year the period of delay open to this House in dealing with legislation coming to us from another place. If we look at it in terms of Parliament sitting for its full term of five years, it means that out of the five Sessions the other House would not be subject to the veto of this House for more than the last Session of Parliament. At present, of course, if these powers were exercised to the full it would be possible for this House to delay Bills for the last two years out of the five of a Parliament's life. We are very strongly of the opinion that one year is quite adequate.
  There have been various pleas advanced against the Bill. In the main, the contention has been that time is required for the public to become seized of an issue, for this House to make up their mind what to do about it and so on. Quite frankly, that is a contention which I do not think has much force in it. If we remember the rapidity of communications these days, through the wireless and other means—in addition to the Press which is ever present, and in addition to the efforts of men on the platform—I suggest that it is fanciful to pretend that it requires two years either for this House to make up their mind about a subject or for the public to be adequately informed.
  There is one question to which I would refer—and here, I am afraid, I am repeating a reference I made on one of the other occasions on which we dealt with this matter; but it is very illustrative. Your Lordships will remember that not
  1012
  long ago there was a Bill relating to capital punishment, which came up to your Lordships' House with a provision in it prohibiting capital punishment. Now, it did not require two years for that issue to arouse public attention. It did not require two years for your Lordships to become exceedingly interested in the subject, and to come to a definite opinion on it. As a matter of fact, there was almost a furore within about a fortnight, and it is fair to say that instead of two years being required for the public to be fully seized of the issue, or for this House to be able to deal with it, two months would be a generous estimate. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that the case for a long period of delay is an exceedingly narrow one. It is an interesting point—which, of course, we have not overlooked—that this claim was never advanced when there happened to be a Conservative majority at the other end of the passage. We cannot forget that it becomes an issue of first-rate importance only when there is a House of Commons of a constitution not acceptable to the majority in this House.
  What does this Bill in fact provide? It provides that there shall be at least a year from the Second Reading in another place before the final stage is reached. In the course of our discussions on previous occasions it was urged that the House of Commons might keep a Bill for a very long time; and that the twelve months which would be available for its consideration would be greatly curtailed, because we might not receive the Bill from the other place within a year. There was considerable validity in that contention; and as a result, as your Lordships may remember, I indicated last time on behalf of the Government, that in order to secure that there should be adequate time we were willing to accept an Amendment to provide that there should be, if required, nine months from the time the Bill was read a third time in the other place; and this was from the time it reached this House. That Amendment, I think I can fairly say, was rejected, with contumely; at all events it was rejected out of hand.
  Let us think for a moment about this point. We have had some very great measures before us during this Parliament. Has it ever taken even nine months for this House to deal with a

  1013
  matter? We pride ourselves—notwithstanding certain animadversions made from time to time by political partisans—about the efficiency with which we deal with Bills which come before us. Take very large Bills like the Transport Bill—a big and complicated measure; or even the Iron and Steel Bill, which is so fresh in our minds. It did not take that length of time: two or three months was a generous allowance, even for these great Bills. And the fact is that this contention that two years' delay is required has nothing in it—and everybody knows it.
  Two years ago, however, another point was made against this proposal. It was said that it was a constitutional revolution; and there were many forebodings as to what would happen in consequence. Let us be quite frank with one another; there has been no uprising of public opinion about the Bill. There has been no lively discussion on Conservative platforms. I am not a diligent reader, I must confess, of political speeches as reported in the Press, but I have not noticed a single occasion on which a Conservative candidate tried to work up his audience into anger about this Bill. In fact I have not seen any case in which it has been even mentioned—much less made a matter for attempt at stirrings of revolution. As a matter of fact, the reason is that the Conservative candidates have too much sense; they know there is nothing in the point. The threatened stirring up of revolutionary feelings in the campaign against this Bill—and this is a reflection which I venture to make on what threatened two years ago—has fallen completely flat.
  I am sure that the people outside recognise and respect the high quality of our debates in this House. They recognise the high standard of our discussions and the value of the work done here in amendment of Bills; and they also, I am sure (and I am speaking now very much for the members of my own Party) admire and respect the restraint of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in the conduct of our business—and I would like parenthetically to say how sorry I am as I am sure the whole House is that the noble Marquess is not able to be here to-day. The public recognise the good service that this House renders. But they also know certain other
  1014
  things. Let us not forget that they know that the great majority of the Peers of this country never attend this House at all; they know that in reality the work here is done by about 120 to 150 men, and that that number contains a very high proportion of men of real distinction. They also know that in the background, as I expect we shall see in a Division today, this House is overwhelmingly Conservative and that it has no representative authority.
  I believe they recognise furthermore that it is not reasonable that this House, if it were so minded, should be able to sterilise two years' out of the five years' work of another place if it did not approve of it. They also know that to suggest that it requires two years for us here to make up on' minds, or for the public generally to make up their minds, about great issues is, with the greatest respect, just ridiculous There is nothing in the claim. I, for one, regret exceedingly that an opportunity which offered itself two years or so ago to deal with the Constitution of this House and many other matters upon which we had attained so large a measure of agreement should be thrown away. I have regretted it ever since and continue to regret it. I think it will or may prove in the course of time to be another of the tragic blunders which the Conservative Party have committed in the face of a great opportunity. At any rate, we shall all agree on this: that, whatever we may think about it, it is too late in this Parliament to redeem that blunder. What has happened since then has fortified the Government and the Labour Party in their resolution to proceed with this Bill. It is entirely reasonable in itself, and I say, without vestige of dubiety, that there is no evidence whatever either from by-elections or elsewhere, that on this subject the people think differently from the Government. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Addison.)
  2.53 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, as the Leader of the House has said, I am sure that in all quarters of the House there will be deep regret that our Leader on this side has at the last moment been smitten down by bronchitis and is unable to be present to say the last word on this

  1015
  Bill from this side of the House. What is said here to-day is not the last word; the final verdict. That will rest with the electors of this country. Whatever misrepresentations are made during the Election—and I have no doubt they will be many and varied—I do not think they will obscure the simple issue which is before the House to-day and which will be before the country at the next Election.
  Let me deal at once with one argument which was made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House in what was a modest, moderate and agreeable speech. After a rather curious allusion to the death penalty, he based his claim for the Bill on the composition of this House. But that is not the issue before us in this Bill. This House has not objected to being reformed. On the contrary, for thirty years it has been pressing that it should be reformed and successive Governments—not only of one complexion, I admit—have declined to do it. It was not on the composition that our real disagreements took place in the Conference. We came fairly near to agreement there—I am not going outside the published terms—and the general principle that there ought to be a Second Chamber in which no Party had necessarily a continuous majority was accepted as common ground. If that is the objection which noble Lords opposite have to this House, why do they not proceed to lay before us proposals for a reform of the Second Chamber? On the contrary, they made it abundantly plain that, whatever reforms took place in the composition of this House, they would not give to a reformed House any more powers or any greater powers than they are prepared under this Bill to concede now. Therefore that entirely disposes of that "red herring" of the composition of the House and the backwoodsmen as bogeys in the background.
  Nor was the Leader of the House, if I may say so respectfully, much more fortunate or felicitous in his description of the powers which this Chamber claims to exercise. It does not seek to override the popular will. This House has never arrogated to itself the right to interpret the popular will. But where the popular will is being clearly flouted or where it is at best very doubtful,
  1016
  this House has the right and the duty to give time for reflection and for the expression of the will of the people. It is that which involves what is known as the power of delay. The Leader of the House said in effect that the period of time was of little consequence. But it must be remembered, although the Government so often conveniently forget it, that this country, practically alone of all the great nations of the world, has no written Constitution and, what is much more important than the absence of a written Constitution, that the whole Constitution can be altered by the introduction of a simple Bill introduced by a Government with a temporary majority in another place. It may be that that majority is a small majority. It may represent only a minority of the British people. It may have become still less representative with the passage of time and the conduct of affairs by the Government of the day. Yet, under our Constitution, such a Government and such a majority have this vast unfettered power—unfettered, that is, except in so far as restraint may be exercised in case of need by a Second Chamber.
  It is that which makes any Bill dealing with the Constitution so important. Not only are its proposals important; it is vitally important to be sure that the country approves the measure. That has always been recognised in the past. When Mr. Asquith introduced the Parliament Act of 1911 he insisted on two things: first, that the Second Chamber should have an effective power of delay —namely, the two years laid down in that Act—and, secondly, that the Bill should be submitted specifically and, indeed, textually to the electors in order to be sure that there was a popular mandate for what was proposed. How different that is from what is being done now by the present Government!
  I think most people are still wondering why this Bill was ever introduced. If the Socialist Government had really feared that this House would thwart their mandate, surely a Bill would have been introduced in the early days of the present Parliament. Of course, there was no such fear. The noble Viscount has paid a just tribute to the leadership of my noble Leader and, I think he added, the judgment exercised—and so readily exercised

  1017
  —by his followers. Certainly your Lordships in the years that have passed in this Parliament have given no cause for any such fear. There have come to this House Bill after Bill which the great majority of your Lordships thought ill-advised and which events have proved to be singularly ill-timed and unsuccessful; yet all those Bills have been passed. It is true that they were passed in a great deal better form than that in which we received them. Literally thousands of Amendments have been made here which the Government and another place have accepted as necessary or desirable. That has all been clone by common consent and has evoked not only the approval of the present Government but certainly, as the Leader of the House has said, the fullest approval of the country.
  There have been two exceptions; two issues on which we have been in conflict. First, there was the question of the death penalty. I was rather surprised to find the Leader of the House praying that case in aid of his argument in favour of the Bill. My Lords, in the matter of the death penalty the Government accepted your Lordships' decision. Why? Because they knew that that decision was right. Their own followers, not for the first and possibly not for the last time, had flouted the advice given them by their leaders. Furthermore, the Government knew that this House was correctly interpreting the will of the people. It is quite true that it did not take long for that issue to be understood by the people. But if the period of delay is whittled down and whittled down, what guarantee is there that a House of Commons determined to do what it desires, with pressure groups pressing upon amenable leaders, would have agreed to the will of the people if, in the last resort, your Lordships had not had a real power to make the will of the people effective or to give the public their chance?
  Then there was the Steel Bill, the real genesis of this Bill. There is no secret that on the nationalisation of iron and steel the Government were much divided; and it is notorious that the Steel Bill itself, when it was finally produced to Parliament, bore little relation to and went far 'beyond anything for which a shadow of a mandate could be claimed. Moreover, the economic crisis which we face to-day has completely changed the
  1018
  circumstances in which the nationalisation of iron and steel was ever considered or discussed at the last Election—if, indeed, it ever was so considered by anybody. Here, if ever, there was a case in which the House of Lords was justified and bound to give the people a chance of deciding this momentous issue. Indeed, the Government have accepted the whole substance of your Lordships' Amendments postponing the operation of the Steel Bill until after an Election has taken place and the people have expressed their will.
  Yet not only was the Steel Bill the genesis of the Parliament Bill—the Parliament Bill was never heard of before that controversy—but that consultation with the people in regard to steel was exactly what this Parliament Bill was designed to prevent. The retrospective clause in this Parliament Bill had, and could have, no other purpose but to force through the Steel Bill before the people had been consulted. Like a kangaroo, the Parliament Bill carried the Steel Bill in its pouch. My Lords, we have heard of kangaroo closures, but this is the first and, I hope, the last time any of a; will meet a kangaroo Bill. And the kangaroo was abortive, for the Government have accepted the whole substance of your Lordships' contentions regarding the Steel Bill. How foolish that sinister, retrospective clause looks now. It will remain for the time being on the Statute Book, a shoddy monument of Political ineptitude.
  My Lords, the issue before us and before the country to-day is really one of single-Chamber government. That is what the Parliament Act of 1911 was most carefully designed to avoid. It was designed to give this Chamber those rights and duties which are necessary to safeguard, not our position, but the national interest and the popular will, and to give a reasonable time for delay and reflection. The Leader of tie House spoke to-day as if all issues were as simple as that of the death penalty. Of course, that is not so. Some issues are simple; others are very complex, and emerge clearly only after month; and months of debate in both Houses of Parliament. Unless sufficient time given for the people to form a considered view, there may he put into force legislation to which public opinion is entirely opposed and which may have disastrous and, indeed, irrevocable results.

  1019
  Now the Government have evolved an entirely novel and unconstitutional doctrine—I am glad that we did not hear it to-day, but it has been the theme song of almost every ministerial speech in another place. It is this: that once a House of Commons is elected, that House of Commons is the sole interpreter of the popular will; it is absolute until another election. Under this novel theory, the electors give to the Government and their majority in the House of Commons, an irrevocable power of attorney. Doctor Dalton, seldom the most discreet of men, has suggested that your Lordships' powers should be still further curtailed. But is he not logical when he suggests that? If the House of Commons is to be all-powerful at all times, why have a Second Chamber at all?—unless, indeed, it is to camouflage the reality of the absolute autocracy of another place. Do not forget that the modern technique of minority autocracies is always to preserve the camouflage of popular institutions, while effectively stifling or suppressing the popular will.
  An effective Second Chamber is to-day more than ever the safeguard of popular freedom. It is the safeguard against extremists, whether of the Right or of the Left, and there is little difference between them. They are blood brothers and both are bad guides. It is a vital safeguard of democracy where there is no written Constitution, and where Parliament can do anything. The attitude which your Lordships' House have adopted on this Bill, on the Steel Bill and on the question of the death penalty, is good constitutional law and good sense. And it is essentially democratic. Four years ago, almost to the day, the present Foreign Secretary, Mr. Bevin, speaking in the House of Commons, of that House and of the British Constitution, used these words which I commend to his colleagues. He said:
  "Where does the power to make law actually rest? It is not even in this House,"—
  That was the House of Commons, of course:
  "it is certainly not in the Executive, it is in the votes of the people. They are the sovereign authority."
  Mr. Churchill has recently supplied the counterpart as regards this House, when he said:
  1020
  "It is not the function of the House of Lords to govern the people, but to make sure that the people have the right to govern themselves."
  That exactly expresses our attitude. That is the trust we cannot betray. That, my Lords, is the issue on which we shall vote, and which we shall commit with confidence to the people.
  3.12 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I share fully the regret, which has been expressed by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, that this Bill comes before your Lordships' House for the third time by itself, as it was introduced, unaccompanied by any measure for the reform of your Lordships' House. I had hoped at one moment, when the three-Party Conference had sat and reached substantial agreement on all points relating to the composition of the House, that at last, after seven centuries of history, this great Assembly would be able to go forward and with unanimous voice propose change in its own composition which was suited to the modern world and which would have been agreed by the whole body of the nation. That opportunity was missed. To my mind it was a thousand pities. I feel very strongly that the responsibility rests mainly with the Conservative Party. They should have agreed to the Government's compromise proposal on the question of powers. There was a difference of only three months in the period of delay between what they were willing to accept and what the Government proposed, and for the sake of those three months it was not worth while abandoning the whole scheme. It would have been in the interests not only of the nation taken as a whole, but also of Conservatism to have settled satisfactorily and by agreement this vexed question of the Second Chamber. Every wise man, no matter what his political creed, should have in him some element of conservatism, of caution, and a sense of continuity. However, it is too late now. That moment which should have been seized has been let slip. I can only express the hope that, in the next Parliament, by unanimous agreement between Party leaders the question of the composition of this House may be again brought forward, and that on that occasion it may come to fruition.
  I stand before your Lordships to-day as the only survivor in your Lordships'

  1021
  House of the Cabinet of 1911, the only survivor of that Cabinet which passed the Parliament Act which it is now proposed to amend. How different the situation is now from what it was in those stormy years! Then the battle for supremacy between the two Houses was fought out and decided, once and for all. But it needed two General Elections in a single year on that specific issue; it needed a great effort to overcome the obdurate resistance offered, and at the end it was only by the narrow majority of seventeen votes that your Lordships' House of that time passed the Parliament Act. That was achieved only by invoking the reserve powers of the Crown, which is tied to no class and protects no privilege. The Crown is as much a part of our democratic Constitution as any other feature in it. Those powers were rightly invoked on that occasion, as all the world now agrees, and rightly there was acquiescence by the Sovereign, who was prepared to exercise the powers of the Crown if the necessity arose. It is a matter of history—and again it is commonly agreed—that your Lordships' House in those years was wrongly advised in rejecting, Session after Session, many of the most important Bills of a Government who were sustained by a great majority in the House of Commons.
  How different is the position now! Today, as a consequence of that battle and of that victory, your Lordships' House, though it still has a great Conservative majority, is led with great prudence and moderation by the noble Marquess whose absence to-day I, with all other members of your Lordships' House, so deeply regret. In the course that has been followed during these four or five years, Liberal, Peers sitting on these Benches entirely concur. Only two matters of difference have been pushed to the end, and on both occasions noble Lords generally on these Benches have concurred with the official Opposition. First, there was the insistence that the Steel Bill should not be brought into operation until after a General Election; secondly (and this is a matter which has been referred to by both the previous speakers) there was the question of capital punishment. Here again, I believe, the world agrees that on that issue of capital punishment the House of Lords were right and the Government were wrong. I think that many of the members of the Government
  1022
  would, in their hearts, agree with that verdict. But not one item large or small, in the programme of the present Government has been thrown out by the House of Lords in this Parliament, as measures were thrown out in the old days before the passage of the Parliament Act.
  I have no doubt that when the Election comes, the tale of the achievements of the present Government will be put forward in every Election address of the Labour candidates, and on every platform there will be set out a catalogue of the measures beneficial to the people which, under the leadership of the present Government, have been put upon the Statute Book. They have reached tie Statute Book? How have they reached it? Through both Houses of Parliament. I think the Government will find it very difficult at the same time loudly to proclaim the magnificent legislative harvest of these five years and also to make an issue of the "intolerable obstruction" of an unrepresentative House of Lords.
  With respect to the Bill now before us, for Liberals in Parliament and in the country it has two aspects. Both of them are legitimate; both of them can be regarded as embodying sound arguments. Some may say that with an hereditary Peerage in partial control of the Government and the State—and, after all, in spite of all additions which have been made in recent years, three out of four members of your Lordships' House of more than 800 members hold their seats by hereditary right—the more the powers of such a Second Chamber are cut down the better it is, and that whenever a Government present a Bill to extend still further the Parliament Act and reduce still more the powers if delay that Bill ought to be supported by good democrats. They may say that by so doing anyone who holds that view w ill best sustain and continue the policy that was embodied in the Parliament Act by the Liberal Government of Mr. Asquith nearly forty years ago.
  The other view that may be held by people of democratic mind and progressive politics is that the Parliament Act which was passed in 1911 has worked well; that it embodied the considered view of those who spoke for Liberalism in this country; that it contained what they believed to be the right solution so far as powers were concerned, and that

  1023
  what is needed now is reform of the composition. So far as powers are concerned, that was the settlement arrived at by a powerful Liberal Government with a great majority in another place at that time. The question is: What should be done until the reform of the constitution of your Lordships' House is carried into effect? What should be done during the interim—if interim be the right word to cover a period which has already extended nearly forty years?
  The Parliament Act did not embody only a provision for abolishing the absolute veto of the House of Lords; it did not embody only a provision for removing all control over finance by the House of Lords; it did not embody only a clause reducing the lifetime of a Parliament from seven years to five: it also provided for a two years' delay and a three-fold passage of a Bill through another place. That was as much part of our proposals at that time as any other feature of the Parliament Act. We did not support a single Chamber, and when we were accused of being supporters of a single Chamber we said, "No, we have deliberately put in this proposal which allows that period of delay." For my own part, I am not prepared to plead guilty to abandoning the policy of the Parliament Act, of betraying the principles of those who supported those proposals, when I am doing nothing more or less than defending the very principles and the clauses of that Parliament Act itself.
  Of these two views, my right honourable and honourable friends in another place, and no doubt numbers of Liberals throughout the country, have preferred the first. So long as your Lordships' House remains unrepresentative, they think that our powers ought to be reduced to a minimum. My noble friends in this House prefer the second view, and say that we should stand by the Parliament Act as the Liberal Government passed it. It is hot unusual—it frequently happens to the Conservative Party—that different views are taken where no matter of political principle is concerned, and whether the delaying period should be one year or two is no great State issue. Frequently, the Opposition in another place take one view and
  1024
  noble Lords, quite rightly, take a different view. How often when great Bills come forward in another place there are much sound and fury, excited debates, crowded Division Lobbies, the "old lion" roaring, and when the Bill comes to your Lordships' House, under the moderate guidance of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, we have an air of sweet reasonableness and placid calm. In another place, the Leader of the Opposition might say, in words familiar to your Lordships and which come from A Midsummer Night's Dream:
  "I will roar, that I will do any man's heart good to hear me; I will roar, that I will make the duke say, 'Let him roar again, let him roar again'."
  But when it comes to your Lordships' House, so as
  "not to fright the ladies"—
  in this case no doubt, the electors—the Leader of the Opposition might say:
  "I will aggravate my voice so that I will roar you as gently as any sucking dove; will roar you an 'twere any nightingale."
  These differences do occur between the attitudes of the two Houses and the Parties in them to various principles, and it is not improper that it should be so.
  So far from the rejection of this Bill—which we shall vote for—being contrary to the spirit of the Parliament Act, we have had the recent example of the Steel Bill. As The Times said, this Bill was intended to be the pathfinder for the Steel Bill. We had exactly the kind of case to which the Parliament Act was meant by its authors to apply. If there had been no Steel Bill, I am pretty sure there would have been no Parliament Bill. The electorate were not made aware as a really prominent issue in the last General Election of 1945 that the Steel Bill would be introduced. In another place, an October 31, the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Morrison, defended this measure because he objected to issues being referred to the electorate by the House of Lords—
  "when they have already been resolved at the last Election."
  How many of the voters, when they went to the poll at the last Election, were conscious that during the lifetime of this Parliament a great measure such as the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry was to be carried out, a measure

  1025
  of great importance affecting the whole economic position of the nation? If the industry is nationalised and it fails, if the administration is inefficient and unsuccessful, it will do infinite injury to the whole economic life of the country and to the standard of living of the people. Furthermore, that Bill came forward at the very end of a Parliament, and during the years of that Parliament we have had much new experience with regard to nationalisation which ought to be taken into account. There are new factors, and there is no reason to suppose that the electorate need necessarily acquiesce in that Bill now with the same measure of indifference as at the time of the last General Election, after so many industries have been nationalised not always with great success.
  Therefore, I conic to this conclusion: that if ever there was a case when the functions reserved by Parliament to a Second Chamber should be exercised, this case of the Steel Bill is it. Yet—and here is the point to which I would draw your Lordships' special attention—if this Parliament Act amendment Bill had been already the law of the land, if we were now working under a Parliament Act of this sort, passed, say, in 1946 or 1947, the Steel Bill would at this very day have come into force as the law of the land, without any reference to the constituencies at all; for the period of one year would have elapsed from the Second Reading of the Bill in another place on the first occasion on November 17, 1948. We are now at November 29, 1949. The period would have elapsed and the Royal Assent would have been given to that Bill, if this new Parliament Bill had taken the place of the Parliament Act of 1911 as the law of the land.
  There are other factors to be taken into account. All these conditions indicate that had the Steel Bill become effective in law—as it would have done but for a late concession of the Government—under the provisions of this measure, it would have had legal validity, but it would not have had moral validity, considering its history. The Conservative leaders declared that if they came into power after the next General Election they would repeal that Bill. That will not now be necessary, because it will not be put into operation, owing to the recent Amendments which the House of Lords
  1026
  proposed and which, in effect, though in slightly different terms, have been accepted by the Government. But the Conservative leaders said they would have repealed this Bill, and in my view they would have been within their rights in doing so, taking into account all the history of the case.
  It is a very undesirable thing that one Parliament should have to undo the work of another. Hitherto, in the working of our Constitution, we Lave always avoided that. Each Parliament in turn has been willing to accept the work of its predecessor and has not cancelled it out by a series of repeals. It would have been an unhappy thing if, for the first time, as I think, it should be necessary and legitimate for a new Parliament to undo the work of its immediate predecessor. Once that became the practice of the Constitution, and if it were made a precedent, it might well be quoted later, and so would introduce into our legislation an air of uncertainty and instability which would have a most deleterious effect upon our industrial life, upon our financial constitution and upon the national life in general. It is far better, therefore, as has now been agreed, that the coming into force of the Steel Act should be held over.
  Why has this change occurred? What is the reason for this unexpected change in the Government's programme for this Parliament? Why did they at the last moment, and after a considerable time had elapsed for consideration, decide to accept the Lords' Amendments which, in effect, postpone the operation of the Act until after the General Election? Is it because they recognise the justice of that demand on general constitutional grounds? Not at all. They deny that it would have been wrong to pass it in the life of the present Parliament. Is it because in any case is would not be practicable to bring the Act into full operation within the period that they had intended, that they would not be able to set up the authority to administer the Act, and for other similar reasons? That may be true, and it may render the change less distasteful. But that would not of itself have obliged them to make this change.
  I am inclined to think that there may be another reason—namely, that, from the point of view of legislation once the

  1027
  Steel Bill was passed the way would be clear for an early General Election if they found it expedient to undertake one. What their view is likely to be I am unwilling even to guess; very likely they have not yet decided. The fact remains that it may have been a very cogent argument to say that it would make no difference in the actual working out of the scheme to agree to the postponement; while if they did not do so, and did not pass the Bill at once, the timetable, under the provisions of the Parliament Act, would necessitate postponing a General Election until at least the late Spring, and possibly even later.
  The month of April is an important month in the Parliamentary calendar, because it is the Budget month. What the provisions of the Budget may be would probably have a great influence upon the course of an Election coming very quickly afterwards. If devaluation succeeds—if by the early Spring we are likely to be well on the way to a solution of the dollar problem, if our gold and dollar reserves are steadily recovering, and if, consequently, the Budget is likely to be an easy or even a popular one, then there would be much to he said, from the standpoint of the Government, for waiting until after those events had taken place before going to the country. If, on the other hand, they foresee that the opposite may occur—that the reserves may still be diminishing, that the pound may still be falling in the markets of the world, and that the economic position is still so grave and gloomy that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to bring, in a Budget in accordance with those facts—then for the Government to go straight away to the country would be political ineptitude.
  In the course of my career I have often heard of a Government saying they would wait and introduce a popular Budget, and then go to the country; but I have never heard of a Government saying that they would wait and introduce an unpopular Budget and then go to the country. That possibly being the situation, we may have an explanation there of this change of programme.
  Last November, after devaluation, there was a good deal of pressure from the newspapers and from the Conservative Party for an immediate Election.
  1028
  Had the Government acceded to that pressure, I am certain that immediately afterwards those who had been advocating a General Election would at once have accused the Government of running away from their responsibilities, of having got the country into a mess and of leaving it to other people to get us out of it by taking the harsh measures that would be necessary to recover the situation. Those would have been the immediate consequences. The Government, however, took credit—and perhaps rightly took credit—for not having done that, and for having been willing to face the situation and bear their responsibilities. They vaunted themselves on their virtue, as they were entitled to do. I am waiting to see whether, if the Budget is likely to he unfavourable, they will still maintain that virtuous attitude; whether they will still go on and face the consequences, bring in the Budget and take measures, however unpopular, to combat the situation, and then go to the country appealing for respect for their own virtues in having regard to the financial interests of the country. It is probable that that question has not yet been finally answered by the Government, because they cannot foresee—as none of us can foresee—whether the economic situation will turn out favourably or unfavourably; and in this period our politics are dominated by our economics. I believe that history will regard the story of the Iron and Steel Bill and the Parliament Bill together as a most complicated pattern of political manœuvring. As to this Bill, we on these Benches feel that the House ought to reject it, and we shall vote accordingly.
  3.38 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I desire to detain your Lordships for only a few moments, but I must take up the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on two things which he said. He apparently does not meet the many people in the country, in all walks of life, whom I meet, and who all say: "Thank God for the House of Lords." They are fully alive to the importance of this House. The noble Viscount referred to the results of the by-elections. I have often heard members of his Party refer with satisfaction to the results of the by-elections. I took the trouble to ask somebody in my political office to look up the results of by-elections during this century. It is a

  1029
  curious thing that, no matter what Government have been in office, if the majority in a constituency at the General Election was 5,000 and upwards it has practically never been reversed in a by-election. I think I am correct in saying that during the term of office of this Government, there has been only one by-election where the majority was less than 5,000—South Hammersmith, where it was 3,800-odd. So far as I can remember, in every case the by-elections have shown a big diminution in the majority of the Government candidate. I hope the noble Viscount will bear that fact in mind in future.
  It, is absolutely essential, as we all know, that we have a really strong Second Chamber, and I have taken the trouble to look up the powers of Second Chambers in other countries. I find that in the Commonwealth of Australia their Senate has is Socialist majority at the moment. I find that one of the conditions under which the Senate works is that the Senate may not originate or amend money bills and that disagreement with the House of Representatives may result in dissolution or, in the last resort, a joint sitting of both Houses. Your Lordships will see that the feeling throughout the world is that there should always be a strong Second Chamber. In view of what was said by Sir Stafford Cripps, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Bristol on February 28 last year, I feel that we do need a very strong Second Chamber here. This is what he said on that date:
  "If we fail as a nation in tackling and solving our problems by methods of social democracy, then we shall find ourselves drawn into totalitarian expedients."
  Think what a sinister remark that is. We in this country need a really strong Second Chamber which will combat anything such as is suggested, or perhaps hidden, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Parliament Bill seems to me to 'mean that this House would have no effective powers to restrain extremism anywhere in our political life and, therefore, under this Bill we should become nothing more than a debating Chamber. For that reason I shall vote against the Bill.
  3.43 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, as I listened to my noble
  1030
  friend the Leader of the House, with that admiration which he always excites in our breasts, and heard his disquisition as to the extreme moderation of everything that he has proposed, I could not help being reminded of the old nursery rhyme of the housewife going into the farmyard to collect material for the family dinner, and saving to the assembled ducks:
  "Dilly, dilly, dilly, come and be killed."
  That was really the attitude of my noble friend.
  At the beginning of this controversy there were two distinct issues. It was thought that the Parliament Bill was introduced in order to force through the Steel Bill and, therefore, during the discussions the merits of that Bill were partly in issue. But it also raised—and this is the only point upon which I am going to address your Lordships—very acutely, particularly by its retroactive clause, the whole question of the Second Chamber. That is a very important question and I beg your Lordships not to underrate it. Its existence, its powers and -its constitution are the real issues with which we are faced in this Bill. It is clear that, quite apart from the special provisions of this Bill and the question of one year, two years or three years, its actual provisions create a 'precedent for any further diminution which may be desired by the Cabinet of the day of the powers of the Second Chamber. That has already been partially recognised this afternoon, but it is the point 'upon which I desire to press your Lordships very strongly.
  It has become obvious to anyone who has been reading what has happened in the last few weeks, that an active and influential section of the Labour Party, if not the whole of it, adopting a very different tone front that of my noble friend who leads the House, intend to use this precedent for the further diminution of the legislative powers of this House. It has become almost a commonplace of ministerial speeches that, in principle, the Second Chamber ought to be abolished, or at least deprived of all its legislative authority. We may take it as certain that in any future Parliament the powers of this House for resection—and not for rejection only, but even for delay—are to be at the mercy of any Government which may in the future control the House of Commons. It is true, of course, that

  1031
  the right of discussion and suggestion with regard to any legislative proposal will remain, but it will be in essence no greater than that possessed by many other bodies who are accustomed to consider legislative proposals. The Trades Union Congress, for instance, or any other body which exists to advocate any legislative proposals—such as the World Government Society or the United Nations—will have just as much power over legislation as will belong to this House; that is, the same power of discussion and suggestion as belongs to every debating society in the Kingdom. That is no exaggeration—that is the literal fact of what will or may be the position of this House. Some bodies are no doubt more influential than others, but the point is that this House will have no more legislative power than any of those bodies which exist in the country. The issue we therefore have to face is the question of whether in our Constitution there ought to be a single legislative Chamber or two such Chambers.
  I am not going to enter upon any elaborate disquisition as to the advantages of the Second Chamber; they seem to me obvious. The whole question—and it is the question we have constantly reiterated—is whether there is to be any right of appeal from the First Chamber to the electorate before measures of great importance are carried into law. It is unnecessary to remind your Lordships that the overwhelming mass of constitutional opinion in the democratic part of the civilised world is in favour of the existence of a power to insist on such an appeal. Sometimes it is by a Second Chamber and sometimes by referendum; but whatever the device is, the power of appeal remains. I have read frequently, in publications which support the view that a single Chamber is sufficient, the allegation that because the House of Commons represents the people there is therefore no need for further appeal to them. I believe that to be an entire illusion. I do not think it was ever true, but in the past it might fairly have been said that the people had appointed the Members of the House of Commons as their deputies and representatives, and that each Member was authorised and expected to use his own judgment as to what his constituents really desired and to act
  1032
  accordingly. Even during my life-time it was still true to say that something like that was roughly the position of a Member of Parliament—a position which, as your Lordships know, was vehemently contended for by all sorts of authorities whom I need not cite.
  I remember well the Parliament of 1880, in which there was a considerable Liberal majority, being returned in the General Election of that year. But that was a majority which was by no means docile. The Members thought for themselves, and the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Gladstone, who was probably as powerful a Parliamentarian as ever lived, could not rely on carrying his Government measures through the House of Commons unless the majority of Members, using their independent powers of consideration, had arrived at the conclusion that the Government policy was in accordance with the wishes of the people. As your Lordships will doubtless recollect, the Gladstone Government were repeatedly in danger of defeat in the House of Commons, even during the first years of their existence. And though that was substantially avoided in that Parliament, yet in the succeeding Parliament, which also had a large Liberal majority, the House of Commons decided to reject the Home Rule Bill and force a dissolution which resulted in the defeat of the Government at the polls.
  No such event would be possible under the present working of our Constitution. That is the point I desire most strongly to press on your Lordships. We had then something very nearly approaching to a democracy. We have changed it for a democratic oligarchy, the oligarchy being the Cabinet of the day. Substantially, whatever they do the Cabinet of the day are in no danger of serious defeat by the modern House of Commons. So long as they retain control of the Party machine they can prevent any considerable revolt of their followers. That has been increasingly true for many years before the present Government came into office. Should a member of the majority vote against the Government of the day on any important question, immediately pressure has been put upon him through his constituency by the Party central offices. Every kind of inducement has been employed to prevent his action; and

  1033
  if he declines to be coerced in that way, it is pretty certain nowadays, unless he has some very strong personal and local influence, that he will lose his seat at the next General Election through the action of the central Party organisation.
  That, as I say, has been so for many years past, but it has become much more definite and explicit at the present time. Therefore we have to ask ourselves whether we will entrust all legislative powers in this country to a single Chamber which is at the orders of the Cabinet of the day. That is the real truth. Indeed, a modern Cabinet seem in these matters to be as powerful as an absolute monarch; and though it may truly be said that they owe their power ultimately to the votes of the electorate, yet that was equally true of rulers like Napoleon III—or even Hitler. A despot does not become less of a despot because he obtained power by a plebiscite; a Cabinet is no less an oligarchy because its powers have a similar origin. If it be said that in any case the Cabinet will have to face the electors in not less than five years' time, I reply that even that safeguard, insufficient as it appears to me to be, may be swept away by the procedure inaugurated by this Bill. With these considerations in view, it seems to me that this is no time to talk of abolishing the powers of the Second Chamber. T am sure that they ought to be maintained and even strengthened—only there is one great difficulty.
  The present House of Lords has a very great history, going back at any rate to the days of Edward I, and perhaps further. It has a great tradition of public duty, honestly and capably carried out, and I trust that I shall not be regarded as impertinent if I say that the present House of Lords has worthily discharged its traditional duties. I have seen various schemes for improving its membership by confining it to people who have already proved their capacity in other ways. I say frankly that such schemes do not much appeal to me. I have no belief that a House consisting of ex-Governors or ex-civil servants or ex-dignitaries of other kinds would be a better Chamber than the present one. I have to admit one great point against our present House t that is that there are in it a permanent majority of members who hold the views of one of the great Parties of
  1034
  the State. To my mind that is an objection to which no satisfactory reply has been suggested in the schemes to which I have alluded. I believe that the members of a reformed Chamber would be just as conservative as the present House. I cannot think that a Second Chamber which permanently favours one Party will be able to retain any considerable legislative power. The great days of the House of Lords were when it was really impartial as between the different forms of political thought in the country and when it exercised its powers sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other. That, of course, is no longer the case, and I am satisfied that if we are to preserve a Second Chamber—as I devoutly hope we shall—we must meet that great objection. It can be met, so far as I can see, only by entrusting the legislative functions of this House to members who can truly claim that they are actually representatives of the settled views of the electorate.
  I will not, on this occasion, attempt to sketch the details of any scheme by which that result could be achieved, but I do not think it would be very difficult to devise such a scheme. One word of caution only I will add. I believe that it would be a very great mistake to destroy the present House. Apart from a few minor alterations, I hope that it will remain substantially as it is, but its legislative duties must he carried out by a section who have behind them the authority of the electors. I believe that this is absolutely essential if we are to maintain the Second-Chamber Constitution of this country. I am convinced that it will rest with the majority of the members of this House whether or not that result is attained. If they agree that a real Second Chamber is essential, and are ready to take the necessary steps to secure it, then I do not believe that any House of Commons, however avaricious of its powers it may be, will in the end be able to resist a policy of that kind.
  4.0 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships more than a few minutes because I realise that the time has come when we want to record our votes, and also because I realise that, whatever eloquence I might possess, I could not possibly persuade your Lordships to stray from the paths which have already

  1035
  been mapped out by the various leaders. For my own part, whether two years is or is not too long to ascertain the opinion of the electors, I am perfectly certain it is too long for those who at comparatively regular and recurring intervals have to get up and talk again on this Bill in an endeavour to find something new to say about it.
  If I may be allowed to say so, it must also be quite long enough for the Liberal Party. I have always had the most profound admiration for both the personality and the oratorical efforts of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I do not think I ever in my life have heard anybody perform with such skill and agility such an appallingly difficult task as he has performed to-day. As a result of the three occasions in this House when voting on the Bill took place, the Liberal Peers are one up against." On the first occasion they voted for a Second Reading. On the second occasion they voted against a Second Reading and on the third occasion they are going to vote against a Second Reading. That makes them one up "against." But my recollection is that in another place the Liberal Party have been two to one the other way. So that in the match as between the two Houses, the Liberal Party seem to be all square. I confess that had I been the noble Viscount, I should not have used the phrase about "roaring" in the circumstances. It seems to me that that leaves him open to some misconstruction.
  For the rest, I should like to say this. I am old enough to remember the controversies of 1909, those full-blooded controversies that we had in those days. It is the fact that there is nothing to-day to compare with the rancour and asperity of Party politics which was shown at that time. It is the fact, as the Leader of the House has said, that honesty compels us to admit that the passage of this Bill has excited very little public interest one way or the other. Perhaps it is because we have not the platform orators to-day that we had in those days. It has become traditional on these occasions to quote something from Mr. Churchill in his unregenerate days. I wish we had somebody to give us the same sort of "stuff" (dare I call it?) to-day. At any rate, it would make the newspapers more interesting reading. There is the magnificent passage about the:
  1036
  "400 or 500 backwoodsmen Peers, all meditating on their estates on the great questions of government, all studying Ruff's Guide and other blue books, all revolving the problems of Empire and Epsom, every one of them a heaven-born, God-granted legislator."
  That is good reading.
  Then the prophecy as to the future. This is from 1909 and Mr. Churchill is indicating what is going to happen in the future:
  "As democracy becomes more numerous and educated, more varied, more complex and more powerful, it is necessary that the House of Lords should recede and, retire. It is necessary that it should count less and less. Most men expected that gradually as things happen in the history of our country the House of Lords would pass peacefully and painlessly away. That would have been a natural evolution, much better for us and much better for them."
  Who accuses us of being in favour of single-Chamber government?
  Now I stop to say one word about the speech of the other Liberal leader, Lord Teviot, with his peculiar brand of Liberalism which has for its slogan, "Thank God for the House of Lords!" He told us about the powers of other Second Chambers. But perhaps the noble Lord would consider that other Second Chambers are elected chambers. The problem which we have to consider here is, what powers shall we give to a Second Chamber which is not an elected Chamber? If you had an elected Chamber here, of course, the problem would be wholly different from the problem as it is.
  I pass now to consider the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. He drew us a dramatic picture of what I think he called an abortive—I suppose he meant "aborted"—kangaroo carrying its young in its pouch. I do not quite know how I square all those things. "But," he said, "this is virtually single-Chamber government. Why have a Second Chamber at all?" I will tell your Lordships why I, at any rate, am in favour of a Second Chamber, why I believe and hope that for many years to come we shall have a Second Chamber, and what, in my view, its functions should be. First, its functions should be the examination and revision of Bills brought from the House of Commons. That function has become more needed since, on many occasions during the last thirty years, the House of Commons has

  1037
  been obliged to act under special rules limiting debate. So far, I take it we are all agreed. Secondly, its functions should be the initiation of Bills dealing with subjects of a comparatively non-controversial character which may have an easier passage through the House of Commons if they have been fully discussed and put into a well-considered shape before being submitted there. Thirdly, its functions should be the interposition of so much delay (and no more) in the passing of a Bill into law as may be needed to enable the opinion of the nation to be adequately expressed upon it. This would be specially needed as regards Bills which affect the fundamentals of the Constitution or introduce new principles of legislation. Fourthly, there should be full and free discussion of large and important questions, such as those of foreign policy, at moments when the House of Commons may happen to be so much occupied that it cannot find sufficient time for them. Such discussions may often be all the more useful if conducted in an Assembly whose debates and Divisions do not involve the fate of the executive Government.
  All your Lordships agree with those propositions. Those were the propositions unanimously adopted by the Bryce Report on the functions of a Second Chamber in 1917, and, with the greatest respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, he is quite wrong in saying that any responsible member of this Government has committed himself to the proposition that we want to achieve in this country single-Chamber government. We do not. I, at any rate, have never heard any responsible member of the Government advocate that, either in public or in private. I would suggest respectfully to the noble Viscount that he should verify his quotations and see to what extent, if at all, he can make that good.
  My Lords, the risk of our losing the Second Chamber would be if that Second Chamber were to bring itself into fundamental opposition with the elected Chamber and thwart that Chamber. If we get into that position, or if we allow our Chamber to clog the machinery of government, or if we dispose our Chamber to embark on controversies for the sake of asserting its own power (I am borrowing my words from the Bryce Report) then we shall have brought
  1038
  about the classical conditions on which we shall lose the Second Chamber altogether. It is because I believe the arrangement in this Bill is one which enables the Second Chamber to perform its functions and gibes sufficient time to enable the opinion of the electors to be ascertained and to enable the electors to be instructed in what is taking place, that I say that those who are friends of the Second Chamber should support this Bill and not reject it, which I understand your Lordships are proposing to do.
  I know the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has the idea firmly fixed in his mind (and I am most unlikely to be able to remove it because I have tried before) that the present House of Commons and those of recent times have been completely servile to the dictates of the Cabinet. Looking at the matter from a different point of view, from the other side of the fence, I sometimes wish there were more truth in that. But I can assure the noble Lord it is not the case. I remember very well one illustration which has been referred to to-day on the question of the death penalty. I remember our leaders giving advice publicly that we should net do away with the death penalty, and I remember this servile House of Commons, in spite of the advice which we gave them, taking exactly the opposite course. It really is not the fact, in my belief, that the House of Commons of to-day, or I think of recent times, simply obeys the dictates of the Cabinet. Indeed, I realise from the other side how sometimes it is necessary to take the greatest caution lest there should be a rebuff from this particular House of Commons which the noble Viscount thinks is servile.
  My Lords, it is because I believe we must retain a Second Chamber in this country, and because I believe that this Chamber has done profoundly useful work, that I am anxious to avoid its being brought up into the real heat of battle with the elected Chamber. If that battle is once more joined, I am perfectly certain that it is not going to be the elected Chamber which loses. I hope that, just as the last Parliament Act covered the ground for the ensuing forty years, so this Parliament Act will still this controversy for another forty years. Of course, I do not in any way rule out the possibility of same alteration being made in the composition of the House,

  1039
  if that is considered desirable. But we all agree that that is a task which must await the next Government, and not this Government.
  On Question, Whether the Bill be now read 2a?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 110.

  CONTENTS

  Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  Braintree, L.

  Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

  Calverley, L.

  Marley, L.

  Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Chorley, L. [Teller.]

  Morrison, L.

  Crook, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Darwen, L. [Teller.]

  Pakenham, L.

  Faringdon, L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, L.

  Hall, V.

  Foley, L.

  Piercy, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Quibell, L.

  Stansgate, V.

  Henderson, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Holden, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Ammon, L.

  Inman, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Archibald, L.

  Kershaw, L.

  Uvedale of North End, L.

  Amwell, L.

  Latham, L.

  Winster, L.

  Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

  Mersey, V. [Teller.]

  Hampton, L.

  Ridley, V.

  Harlech, L.

  Abercorn. M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Samuel, V.

  Harris, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Simon, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Reading, M.

  Swinton, V.

  Hindlip, L.

  Townshend, M.

  Templewood, V.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Kenilworth, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Beatty, E.

  Truro, L. Bp.

  Layton, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Llewellin, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Aberdare, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Craven, E.

  Altrincham, L.

  Luke, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Amulree, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Granville, E.

  Ashburton, L.

  Monson, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Badeley, L.

  Noel-Buxton, L.

  Iveagh, E.

  Baden-Powell, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Manvets, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Rea, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Blackford, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Braye, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Roche, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Chatfield, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Ypres, E.

  Cherwell, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Selsdon, L.

  Allenby, V.

  Sinclair, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Clwyd, L.

  Stamp, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Clydesmuir, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Buckmaster, V.

  Courtauld-Thomson, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Cecil of Chelwood, V.

  Courthope, L.

  Swaythling, L.

  Elibank, V.

  Derwent, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Hailsham, V.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Teynham, L.

  Lambert, V.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Waleran, L.

  Long, V

  Gifford, L.

  Wardington, L.

  Marchwood, V.

  Glentanar, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Margesson, V.

  Greville, L.

  Woolton, L.

  Maugham, V.

  Hacking, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

  WAR DAMAGED SITES BILL
  4.27 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I hope your Lordships will not regard this as an anti-climax to the other proceedings, because although modest this is a useful and, in its way, valuable Bill. I do not think it is likely to raise the temperature of the House as the other Bill has done. There may be different points of view as to some of its details, but it may safely be assumed (at any rate, I hope so) that its objects will be welcomed by your Lordships.
  There can be few members of your Lordships' House who have not been shocked at the appalling condition of many bomb-damaged sites, especially in those towns and cities which suffered extensive devastation during the war. An occasional view of the jagged ruins in the extensive battlefield of the City of London and in other centres may serve to remind us of "our finest hour" and to impress visitors to our shores with the ordeals which we endured. But there is another side to the question. In many of our towns and cities, there are islands—some quite small; other more extensive—which, by the process of time, have become eyesores, and militate grievously against the general amenities of the districts in which they are situated. Bitter complaints have reached the Ministry of Health from people who are compelled to live in close proximity to such sites, which as the days go by become more and more derelict. Many have become dumping grounds for all kinds of rubbish, and if it were nothing more than a question of the danger to health from the dust blown from noxious deposits, the nuisance would demand some action. But many of these sites have become fruitful breeding grounds for flies and rodents, and others are made use of by undesirable characters. Regard must also be paid to the physical danger to children, who find in some of these derelict sites all the risks and excitement so vividly portrayed in the records of the exploits of Dick Barton. The danger to life and limb of these little ones is very real.
  I need not remind your Lordships that the real solution of the problem lies in
  1042
  the permanent development of the sites. That leads me to emphasise, if emphasis be needed in your Lordships' House, that this Bill does not attempt to offer a permanent solution to the problem. The objects of the Bill are essentially of a temporary nature. If I may be permitted to say so, it authorises the ratepayers to do a bit of cleaning up, a little mopping up, dusting and polishing on their own doorsteps Experience has proved that existing powers are neither adequate nor suitable for dealing with these derelict sites on the purely temporary Oasis which this problem needs. Neither the Defence Regulations nor the nuisance provisions of the Public Health Acts provide even a temporary solution. The time has arrived when something must be done to mitigate the evils of which I have spoken It is fully appreciated that responsibility for the creation of a nuisance does not always lie with the owner of the site, and many owners will welcome the opportunity which the Bill affords for their voluntary co-operation with the local authority.
  No doubt your Lordships will have seen in the Press—I think it was yesterday—a notice of the publication of a book entitled Beauty and the Borough, written by a Mr. Cleary. I have a copy of this book, which has a number of illustrations of the way in which bombed sites have been dealt with by the local authority in Hornsey, a borough in which I have had an interest for many years as my bench meets these. I would commend this book to noble Lords who may be interested in the subject. They will see how much can be done, and has been done, even without this legislation, by a local authority which is progressive and has attempted to deal with this problem. This Bill has been brought in to increase the powers of local authorities in this connection, and it will be accompanied by efforts to have the permanent redevelopments set going wherever this can be done consistently with national economic policy. In another place the Bill was given a Second Reading, and there was little contention about it.
  May I deal shortly with some of the details of the Bill which may interest your Lordships? It is contemplated that local authorities will either take leases of untidy war damaged sites which they wish to put in order or seek authorisation from

  1043
  the Minister to acquire them compulsorily. It is felt that usually the authority must proceed in one or other of these ways in order to have some control over the site after they have put it in order, lest it relapse into the nuisance state in which it was originally. The local authorities cannot take power under this Bill for more than five years in the first instance, but they can renew their tenure from time to time if they think the site would otherwise relapse into a bad state, so long as the whole period of tenure does not exceed ten years. Clause 3 provides that the compulsory taking of possession depends upon a written authorisation of the Minister. It was essential to Rive some expeditious procedure here. It would be out of place that there should be long-drawn-out machinery for the acquisition of sites for such a short period, in circumstances where there is no taking of the ownership and, moreover, where the site can revert to the owner so soon as he is in a position to develop it. There are differences between this procedure and that of requisitioning. First of all, there is in this method an opportunity for the owner to object, and the Minister has the statutory duty to take such representations into consideration. Secondly, the Minister may not authorise compulsory taking of possession if it appears to him that the person interested can and will put the site in order himself. The Minister may postpone his decision in order to give such a person an opportunity for carrying out the necessary work.
  When local authorities have taken land under the Bill, they must put it in order. They cannot take possession now and leave it as it is. Subject to that duty, they must use the land for purposes of their statutory functions or let it to others on conditions designed to preserve the amenities. A point of interest to be noticed here is that the works which local authorities are authorised to carry out may include the making of gardens—not necessarily public gardens. One of the illustrations in the book to which I have referred is of a site which has been turned into a small garden. Where local authorities take the land compulsorily, compensation is payable on the basis of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, which, as your Lordships will be aware, means that the local authority will pay
  1044
  a market value rent plus compensation for damage at the end of their term of possession. There is a third method which local authorities may adopt. In cases where they do not consider it necessary to take and hold a site to make it non-injurious to amenity, and where amenity considerations would be satisfied if the site were cleared of useless remains and left in the possession of the owner, the Bill gives the authorities clearer and better powers for action than any powers they have under the Public Health Acts. Any person interested may claim compensation for damage suffered by depreciation or disturbance due to the exercise of this power.
  Clause 10 secures that when land held under the Bill is given up, any planning permissions for activities instituted during the period of tenure come to an end. This means that the owner can resume the previous use of the land without planning permission, but cannot continue the use instituted during the period of tenure without a further planning permission. Clause 11 deals with sites on which a cost of works payment is appropriate. Local authorities will be expected to consult the War Damage Commission about the war damage category of all sites with which they propose to deal. On any of the sites which are cost of works cases the Commission may find out whether the necessary permits for reinstatement could be obtained by the persons interested in the site.
  The next provision is very important. Where the Commission find that permits for immediate reinstatement can be obtained, but for some reason of his own the owner is not prepared to have the work carried out, they will have power to change the payment from a cost of works payment to a value payment. Where, however, they find that although the owner wishes to reinstate he cannot at present obtain the necessary permits, the kind of payment will remain on a cost of works basis, for it would be obviously wrong that his interests should be prejudiced by something beyond his own control. Where a local authority make a proposal for clearing useless remains of war damage on a site held under the Bill, whether it be a cost of works or a value payment site, and the proposal is approved by the Ministry of Health and

  1045
  War Damage Commission in consultation, the cost of removal will rank for reimbursement from the War Damage Commission. It should be noted that this means, the removal of war damage remains only, and not any extraneous matters that have been dumped on the site. Secondly, it would not include any structures that could have formed part of a building when reconstructed. Although there is no specific Government grant for the purposes of the Bill, local authorities will be able to obtain a good deal of assistance where they are carrying out such work.
  Finally, a word may be said about the Festival of Britain. The tidying up of war-damaged sites fits in with the campaign for brightening up in preparation for the Festival. It may be an unspectacular part of the preparations, but it will I be none the less useful. The present economy measures will mean that local authorities will not be able to do as much under the Bill as they might otherwise have done. The extent of action will depend on economic circumstances, but a good deal can he done without heavy expense, and in appropriate cases charges can he spread by raising short-term loans with the Minister's approval. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Kershaw.)
  4.39 p.m.
  Loan TEYNHAM: My Lords, at first sight this Bill appears both attractive and simple, but after closer examination some of its attractiveness still remains and little of its simplicity. A large number of important and complex Acts of Parliament are referred to in this short Bill. In some cases they are, in fact, amended by the Bill. The main purpose of the Bill, which has been well set out by the noble Lord who introduced it, is fairly clear; but whether this measure will be the means of attaining the purpose in view is quite another matter. In the first place, I would suggest that it is a good example of a bad system which is creeping into all our legislation—namely, legislation by reference. No less than eighteen Acts are referred to or amended by the Bill. Whatever may be said in favour of the Bill, it is clearly only a makeshift measure. I would suggest that the proper way to get rid of
  1046
  these war-damaged sites is to get the right sort of development going. We must not allow this Bill to conceal the real problem which ahead, which was mentioned by the noble Lord when he said that this measure does not provide a permanent solution of the problem. I do not wish to cast depressing gloom in regard to the Bill, but I feel it is doubtful if much action will be taken by any local authority, in view of the fact that no grant—in my view, rightly so—will come from the Exchequer the work to be carried out.
  There are one or two questions I would like to put to the noble Lord who introduced the Bill. If your Lordships will turn to the Schedule, where procedure is laid clown whereby the Minister of Health may authorise the compulsory taking over or retention of war damaged sites, you will find that no provision has been made for an inquiry or a hearing in the event of any objection. The Minister merely has to come to his own decision and notify the objector by registered letter. Surely, the owner of a site should have the right of an inquiry or a hearing if he objects to the compulsory acquisition, and should not be at the mercy of the Minister. In fact, it would appear that the objector is not even entitled to know the reasons upon which the Minister's decision is based. If my interpretation of the Schedule is correct, it looks to me very much like the streamlining of a Bill for administrative convenience and without proper consideration and justice for the owners of the sites. In the definition clause "works" are defined as including:
  "the demolition, repair, or erection of buildings and the laying out and cultivation of gardens."
  I would suggest that local authorities are unlikely to erect anything but temporary buildings, temporary hutments, and so on, when they have a maximum possession of only ten years. If they are permitted to erect temporary buildings, it may well mean that improvement in the amenity value of a site will be very doubtful indeed—in fact, the reverse my be the case. Under Clause 9 of the Bill it appears that powers are given to local authorities to carry out all the objects of the Bill without obtaining a lease of the land and without taking possession of the land compulsorily. Therefore, I do not see the necessity for Clause 1 of the Bill.

  1047
  Further, under Clause 9 the period of notice for entering a site is to be only twenty-four hours. Surely that is a most inadequate period. I hope the noble Lord will deal with some of these points in his reply. We welcome the principle of the Bill, but its method of application raises a number of points which will have to be dealt with in Committee.
  4.45 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, one of the weaknesses of His Majesty's Government, as it seems to me, is that they are not very good at guessing the psychology of other people. This Bill has been brought forward, apparently, to tidy up London for the visitors' who are coming here. Do visitors want London to be tidied up in this particular way? I very much doubt it. The visitors will want to see historic London, and our bomb holes are now historic. All over the world they are saying: "We must go and have a look at poor old shattered Britain"; and if they come here and find all round St. Paul's one vast rock garden they will be disillusioned. Of course, we want to show our visitors an alive, up and coming, virile Britain. Do we give that impression by covering our bomb holes with rock gardens? No, my Lords. The way we can give that impression is by covering them with the foundations of buildings. These are the most valuable building sites in our Island, and it is a positive public disgrace that in the vast majority of cases, in spite of our great lack of space for building, we have made no attempt to get down to rebuilding. Moreover, not only have we not done our duty in that respect, but we bring forward a Bill which leads one to believe that for another five years, and for five years beyond that, we still do not anticipate being able to build on those most valuable sites. I feel that such action exposes us to charges of grave ineptitude.
  Then, again, the letting in of a temporary occupier is often a permanent process. I well remember after the First World War going up to Cambridge and being told that my college had the finest cricket ground in the place, but that unfortunately it happened to be a military hospital at the time. I had hopes that during my sojourn there I might one day play cricket on that beautiful ground. However, I believe that to this day it
  1048
  is still occupied by a military hospital or its successor. In other words, a "temporary occupant" is never temporary in this world; and the temporary rock garden, I fear, will become a permanent palm court, or something of that nature. On the technical points that arise under the Bill I am quite incompetent to speak, but I should like to know the position in regard to change of user. At the moment these sites are a trap and playground for children, and I think the noble Lord also said a playground for rodents—they used to be rats when I was young.
  LORD KERSHAW: I purposely avoided the word.
  LORD HAWKE: When you change them into gardens, and so on, is there a change of user involved, and a development charge under the Town and Country Planning Act? If so, the local authority will have paid out good money in development charges, and they will obviously want to hold on to the land in order to get that money back in some way or another. With those few remarks, I would say that I do not particularly welcome this Bill, hut I do not propose to vote against it.
  4.49 p.m.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Teynham has said, that this Bill may contain some useful provisions, but it ought to be examined in more detail in Committee and I do not oppose it. I am interested in one point only—namely, its application to Scotland. I notice that Clauses 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 15 and the last subsection to the Schedule have all special provisions applying the measure to Scotland. Most of these are references to existing Acts. I wondered whether it would not have been better to have a separate small measure for Scotland, rather than to tie on to the coat-tails of this one. I think I can see what has happened. There were some money and some useful powers going, and the Secretary of State may have thought it wise to seize those things while they were in the air. Mercifully, Scotland escaped most of the heavy bombing, but there are sites, particularly on the Clyde, which will require treatment, and the Bill may be useful. I do not expect the noble Lord to he able to say more at this stage, and

  1049
  no doubt the Secretary of State gave the question careful thought. But other things being equal, for the ease of those who are to administer it, a separate Scottish Bill might have been preferable.
  4.50 p.m.
  LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for its reception of this very modest Bill. I was particularly interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, say that there was some money going, and that that was why Scotland was interested. The general criticism has been that no money is provided under the Bill, and that there ought to be. Perhaps he will not be so anxious to have a separate Bill when he has gone through it. I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, should be willing to leave these disgraceful sites as they are until circumstances are such that we can rebuild. Surely something must be done, and it is suggested that this simple method of dealing temporarily with these sites—always remembering that the real solution is that suggested by the noble Lord—is all we can do at this moment.
  A point was raised as to the local authorities being able to go on to a site at twenty-four hours' notice to clear it. The purpose of that clause is merely to enable the site to be cleared of the foul rubbish which may be on it; the authority will not take possession at all. Therefore, there is no need for all the machinery which is needed in the other case where, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, mentioned, fourteen days' notice has to be given. We admit at once that this is,
  1050
  in the noble Lord's words, a makeshift measure, but in dealing with this matter it must be remembered that someone—in many cases the owners of these sites—has permitted them to get into a disgraceful condition. Because of that, I suggest that we need not be too squeamish in seeing that the job is done now. Clause 1 lays down clearly that local authorities cannot enter into this agreement, or apply to the Minister for authority to go in, unless the amenities of the district are interfered with by the condition of the site. That is a prerequisite to the whole machinery being set in motion. The other matters which were raised could profitably he raised in Committee, and because of that, and having regard to the general sympathetic reception which has been given to the Bill, I think we might leave it at that.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CHARITY OF WALTER STANLEY IN WEST BROMWICH BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

  DISTRIBUTION OF GERMAN ENEMY PROPERTY BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  House adjourned at four minutes before live o'clock.