Sitting of 18 April 1950

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 6th April, 1950, for the Easter Recess—met at Half-past Two o'Clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MEMBER SWORN
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Lieut-Colonel William Henry Kingsmill, for Yeovil.

NEW WRIT
For the Borough of Brighouse and Spenborough in the room of Frederick Arthur Cobb, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Whiteley.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    Central Land Board (Forms)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many Forms L.39 have been sent to owners of property by the Central Land Board; how many have been withdrawn; why they were sent; and why withdrawn.
    The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton): One hundred thousand and eighty-three, of which less than 300, sent in error, were withdrawn. The forms were sent to owners of single dwelling houses to ascertain whether their claims to compensation were admissible.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it required a new form —R6/82—to withdraw these forms, will he agree that the issue of these forms caused a number of claimants to answer questions which were optional under Form S.1, and in the circumstances will he give an assurance that the information which they gave will not be used to their disadvantage?
    Mr. Dalton: No information is ever used to anybody's disadvantage in this held. The percentage affected is remarkably small—less than 300 out of 100,083 —and will surprise the hon. Member by its smallness. It is less than one-third of 1 per cent.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Does the Minister not realise that there is great indignation about these forms and that many people feel that they are now being compelled to make a valuation which they chose not to make on Form S.1 and thereby forfeited the contribution for their professional fees?
    Mr. Dalton: I have no evidence of that.
    Sir J. Mellor: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer to this Question, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Historic Buildings (Surveys)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many officials are engaged on preparing surveys under Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947; and what is the estimated cost of this work in the year 1950–51.
    Mr. Dalton: Twenty-four, and about £13,000.
    Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate this work and see whether it cannot be done more economically and with less inconvenience to local authorities?
    Mr. Dalton: This work is the scheduling of buildings of special architectural and historical merit and, I am told, is going forward very well. There is, in fact, a staff reduction taking place which was agreed by my predecessor and was confirmed by me; the numbers will be shortly reduced to about 15. I am satisfied that they are doing their work very well.

    Development Charge
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning why, when the development charges to be paid on houses built on one of Stafford's municipal housing estates are £18 per house, the development charges on houses of almost similar size and construction built by private enterprise run sometimes as high as £210.
    Mr. Dalton: The value of a piece of land, with permission to build a house on it, naturally varies with the situation of the plot and the expenditure necessary on the site, but if the hon. Member will let me have details about the Stafford sites, I will ask the Central Land Board for a report.
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when he proposes to make an announcement regarding the composition of the committee to investigate complaints against the operation of the development charge under the Town and Country Planning Act; if the committee is to meet in public; and what procedure should be adopted by anyone who wishes to lay evidence before the committee.
    Mr. Dalton: I do not propose to set up a committee, but as I informed the hon.
    4
    Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) on 28th March, I have asked the Chairman of the Central Land Board to report to me on possible administrative improvements.
    Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of my Question as to what procedure should be adopted by any person who feels he has a grievance against the operation of this charge?
    Mr. Dalton: He should communicate with his Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Bossom: Could the right hon. Gentleman yet issue any form of words which would give some indication of how these amounts are arrived at?
    Mr. Dalton: I think it would be easy to issue such a form of words, but it would not be the first time it had been done.
    Captain Waterhouse: Would it not be better to repeal the whole of this miserable Measure?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I seem to remember that the present party in Opposition supported the Bill when it was going through Parliament.

    Crawley Development Corporation
    Earl Wintertonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is aware that the Horsham Rural District Council, at its meeting on 22nd February last, passed a resolution to the effect that he should appoint two members from the local authorities, which have been closely associated with the Crawley Development Corporation since its inception, as members of that Corporation; and if he proposes to take action to that effect.
    Mr. Dalton: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir," and, if the council care to submit names to me, I shall be glad to consider them.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sussex County Council, in addition to the rural district council, feel they have been treated with lack of consideration in this matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman go very carefully into the whole circumstances in view of the need for improving relations between local authorities and development corporations?
    Mr. Dalton: That is most important, and I am most anxious that these arrangements should always be cordial and harmonious. I think both sides gain by that. I am most anxious that there should be a fair proportion of local government representatives on the corporations, and I will be glad to receive their suggestions.

    Grass-Drying Plants
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning to what extent it is the policy of his Department to refuse permission for the establishment of grass-drying plants in farms which are in or adjacent to villages.
    Mr. Dalton: I wish to put the minimum of restrictions on the erection of farm buildings, including those required to house grass-drying plants.
    Mr. Turton: What is the Minister doing to carry out his wishes in this matter? Is he aware that the planning authorities are refusing permission for the establishment of these grass driers and will he take action?
    Mr. Dalton: No, I have no evidence that refusal is taking place, but if the hon. Member will send particulars I will, of course, look into them.

    Rebuilding, Liverpool
    Mr. Bevinsasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning to what extent the proposed limitation on capital investment in the building of shops and commercial premises will affect the rebuilding of the bombed central area of Liverpool.
    Mr. Dalton: This matter is now under consideration as regards the central areas of this and other war-damaged cities.
    Mr. Bevins: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that Liverpool is not only a heavily-bombed city, but is also near a development area?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

    Rights of Way (Pamphlet)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he will issue, for the guidance of parish councils and others, information about rights of way in language less difficult to comprehend than that of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act.
    Mr. Dalton: A pamphlet on this subject has already been issued for the information of all local authorities, including parish councils. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pamphlet is taking a very long time to reach parish councils and has not reached them?
    Mr. Dalton: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Parish Councils Association have stated that the pamphlet is excellent and all they needed. I do not know whether he is also aware that it was issued to the parish councils on 21st February.
    Mr. Keeling: It has not reached many of them.

    Land Development (Applications)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many applications to develop land received by the Central Land Board have fallen into abeyance.
    Mr. Dalton: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that land is being offered for development purposes far in excess of existing use value and will he inquire into the matter to see what can be done and inquire particularly to see whether local authorities can give help by purchasing land by compulsory acquisition where development is necessary?
    Mr. Dalton: I am very anxious that there should be no exploitation through charges being made in excess of use value. I have that very much in mind and a number of cases are under study now.

    District Valuers
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will consider making it optional for local authorities to use the services of the district valuer in connection with the acquisition of land under the Town and Country Planning Act.
    Mr. Dalton: The regulations now in force since 26th January require, as a condition of grant to local authorities, that the latter should use the services of the district valuer.
    Brigadier Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why cities cannot use their own valuers?
    Mr. Dalton: I gather we may have a Debate on this matter in a few days' time. I received a deputation the other day from a number of local authorities who put their views before me and I gather we may have a Debate next week. Perhaps in that case I had better reserve my observations.

    Welwyn Garden City
    Mr. John Grimstonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning why half the loss, amounting to £6,904, for the half-year ended 31st March, 1949, on the revenue account of Welwyn Garden City Development Corporation has been capitalised instead of being left as a balance on revenue account.
    Mr. Dalton: The Corporation was established to provide a capital asset in the shape of a new town, and I regard it as proper that the balance of expenditure on general revenue account not covered by grant, should be treated as having been incurred in securing such an asset.
    Mr. Grimston: Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the amounts which made up the total and see whether he does not think that there has been some watering of capital in the first six months of the Corporation's existence?
    Mr. Dalton: I do not think so. I have taken advice on the matter and I think the hon. Member will agree it is purely a matter of accountancy and presentation. I will look at it again, but I am, so far, satisfied on the point.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these corporations borrow money from the Treasury for the purpose of paying interest to the Treasury on the money they originally borrowed?
    Mr. Dalton: It is not quite so simple as that.

    New Towns (Land Acquisition)
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning (1) whether he will use his powers to permit persons whose freehold land and property are acquired by new town develop-
    8
    ment corporations to be given an equivalent freehold plot in exchange and compensation sufficient to replace their property:
    (2) if, in view of the declared policy of ultimately taking over all freeholds in the area designated for the new town of Basildon and the dissatisfaction which this is causing, he will leave in possession of their freehold rights all freeholders whose land and buildings will remain unaffected by the development of that town.
    Mr. Dalton: I have already reaffirmed my predecessor's promise not to acquire property at Basildon before it is needed for actual development, but, where acquisition takes place, I cannot undertake to provide an equivalent freehold plot in exchange.
    Mr. Braine: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the development corporation has stated categorically that the policy of the Government is ultimately to take over all freeholds in the area? Is he also aware that the population of 17,500 makes is unique among new towns and that most of them are freeholders, and these people object? They consider there is no moral justification for having—
    Mr. Speaker: Supplementary questions are not the occasion for speeches.
    Mr. Braine: Will the Minister, therefore, consider using his special powers under the Act to safeguard freehold rights in the area designated?
    Mr. Dalton: I think the freehold rights are completely safeguarded until the time comes for actual development by the undertaking to which I have referred. This area, I must assure the hon. Member, is more in need of decent planning, clean-Mg up and bringing up to date than any other area to which we are bringing a new town.
    Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is being most unjust to owner-occupiers under this provision?
    Mr. Dalton: I do not think so.
    Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is no more satisfaction to a man to be told he will be robbed in 10 years than to be told he will be

    9
    robbed tomorrow? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again.

    Site, Colchester(Purchase Order)
    Mr. Brainasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware of the action of the Central Land Board in compulsorily acquiring a building site at Colchester for £25 on behalf of a man who had already been refused the site by its owner; and whether he will prevent the Board using such sweeping powers to dispossess owners in this manner in the future.
    Mr. Dalton: A compulsory purchase order for this piece of land has just been made. The owners may lodge an objection within the statutory period of three weeks, in which case there will be a public inquiry. As this order will come before me for confirmation, I cannot at this stage make any comment.

    Advertisement Hoarding, Pinner
    Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is aware that both the Middlesex County Council and the Harrow Urban District Council have unanimously protested against permission being granted for the erection of an advertisement hoarding at the corner of Bridge Street and Chapel Lane, Pinner, on the grounds that it constitutes both an eyesore and a danger to traffic; why he has overruled their objections; and if he will now reconsider his decision.
    Mr. Dalton: I have received no official protest from either of the local authorities about this, but it is always open to them to submit for my confirmation a draft order requiring a discontinuance of the use of the site for advertising. I would consider such an order in the light of any fresh evidence they can produce.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Industrial Diseases(Chronic Sufferers)
    Mr. Leslie Haleasked the Minister of National Insurance whether she is aware of the hardship that is caused to
    10
    many chronic sufferers from industrial disease who fail to establish their claim owing to technical reasons under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and what provisions can be made in such cases.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): The particular time limits to which I think my hon. Friend is referring have been removed so far as cases arising under the Industrial Injuries Act are concerned, but I have no power to modify the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts to bring them into line. I do not think that any question of hardship can arise as the people concerned will be covered by other provisions of the Social Security Scheme.
    Mr. Hale: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if she has no power to deal with it under existing legislation, she always has power to initiate new legislation? Will she also bear in mind the more limited but very serious cases of persons who suffer from a recurrence of disease after 5th July, 1948, and are debarred from compensation under either Measure?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think my hon. Friend has in mind two cases which, I agree, have certain sad features, but he will agree with me that when a new scheme is introduced there are bound to be certain people whose benefits are governed by the old scheme and who cannot be brought into the new scheme because that would introduce new anomalies.

    Retirement Pensions
    Mr. Leslie Haleasked the Minister of National Insurance what is the amount of actuarial value computed on the basis of normal expectation of life of a full retirement pension payable to an adult male worker under the National Insurance Act on retirement at 65; and the actuarial value computed on the same basis for an adult worker who retires at the age of 70.
    Dr. Summerskill: By full retirement pensions I assume by hon. Friend means a pension of 26s. for which a man can qualify at 65 and a pension of 36s. for which a man reaching 70 after June, 1953, can qualify at that age. The actuarial value of the former is £670 and of the latter £750.

    Aged People (Housing)
    Mr. Stanley Prescottasked the Minister of National Insurance what discussions she has had with the Minister of Health regarding the erection by local authorities of special housing accommodation for the aged.
    Dr. Summerskill: I am constantly in touch on matters of common interest with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health. But I do not think there is any need for me to make special representations to him about a matter of the importance of which he is fully seized.
    Mr. Prescott: As presumably both the right hon. Lady and the Minister of Health have the interests of the old age pensioners at heart, would it not be of benefit to institute such discussions?
    Dr. Summerskill: I would remind the hon. Member that the powers which my right hon. Friend exercises, and to which I referred, are conferred by Part III of the National Assistance Act, and concern the administration of the local authorities. Therefore, the matter does not come within my province.

    Assistance
    Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of National Insurance what representations she has received from the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners' Associations subsequent to the recent amendment of assistance benefits.
    Dr. Summerskill: I have received a letter from one of the regions of the Federation, to which I shall soon reply.
    Mr. Prescott: Could the right hon. Lady tell the House briefly what was the effect of that letter?
    Dr. Summerskill: Certainly; they wished to have the basic scales increased.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the real distress now being suffered by old age pensioners results from the perpetual increase in the cost of living? Is she further aware that the matter will not be remedied while the present Government are in power?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member has forgotten that a proposal to increase the National Assistance scales was announced recently, and these old age pensioners, numbering 750,000, will be able to apply for the new scales.

    Contributions (Prisoners)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of National Insurance whether arrangements have yet been made for prisoners in gaol to maintain their insurance contributions.
    Dr. Summerskill: On admission to prison, insured persons are advised that they may pay contributions themselves or may arrange for someone to pay on their behalf or may pay retrospectively on discharge. The time limits to be prescribed for retrospective payment are still under consideration, but I intend that they should be as generous as possible.
    Mr. Jeger: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is desirable that these young people in prison should not be penalised and have to pay two penalties for an offence by being debarred from the benefits which would come to them were they allowed to pay their contributions during their period in prison? I hope that my right hon. Friend will make arrangements to that effect.
    Dr. Summerskill: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. As I said in my answer, I intend that those men who wish to retrieve their position shall be able to do so.

    Reciprocal Arrangements
    Mr. F. Longdenasked the Minister of National Insurance with which foreign countries Britain has made such reciprocal arrangements as provide insurance benefits for our nationals in those countries; and what information she has as to the kinds and degrees of the benefits, as well as the conditions of contributions, in comparison with those for foreigners in this country.
    Dr. Summerskill: The only reciprocal arrangement so far made with a foreign country for providing insurance benefits for British nationals in that country is with France. Negotiations are proceeding with a number of other countries. For this purpose information about the matters referred to in the last part of the Question is obtained as a matter of course.

    Pensioners (Cost of Living)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the increase in the prices of butter and bacon will now make it almost impossible for

    13
    old-age pensioners to buy these commodities; and what he proposes to do about it.
    Dr. Summerskill: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the statements made by myself and my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Food on 4th and 5th April, respectively.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister realise that the cost of living has been going up ever since the Socialist Party came into power, and that these poor people cannot afford to go on living with the cost of living going up all the time? There was a penny before Christmas, a halfpenny now; what is it going to be after today?

  EMPLOYMENT

    Bank Employees (Union)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Labour if he can now give the result of his further efforts to reach agreement with the Banque Belge pour l'Etranger on the question of recognition of the National Union of Bank Employees as representing the majority of their staff.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Since my hon. Friend's previous Question on this subject, I have had correspondence with the bank, which I am considering. At the moment, I am not able to say whether there is any further action which I can usefully take.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is there any way in which the right hon. Gentleman can see that foreign concerns in this country give conditions of employment comparable to those of British concerns?
    Mr. Isaacs: I do not think that question arises. So far as I am aware, the question in this case is not one of wages and conditions but of recognition of the trade union membership of the staff.

    Factory Inspectorate
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Minister of Labour how far the present factory inspectorate falls below the proper establishment; what is the commencing salary; and whether he is satisfied that the conditions are good enough to attract the right type of candidate in sufficient numbers to maintain
    14
    an adequate supervision of industrial undertakings.
    Mr. Isaacs: There are at present 51 vacancies on the establishment of the factory inspectorate. Commencing salaries vary according to age, area and qualifications. I will send my hon. Friend details of the rates of pay. Steps are being taken to bring the attractions of a career in the inspectorate more widely to notice. I am not satisfied that it is necessary at present to vary the conditions of employment.
    Mr. Edward Davies: Is this not a difficulty of long standing, which would seem to show that there is something wrong with the conditions, and will my right hon. Friend have them looked at again?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I have looked at these conditions, and they comply with the general Civil Service conditions for comparable ranks. The manning of the inspectorate has been more difficult since the war than before.

    Ex-Service Men (Training)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Labour why assistance by his Department to ex-Regular Service men in training in business or trades on their leaving His Majesty's Forces depends upon the private means of the officers and men concerned; and if he will end this means test at an early date.
    Mr. Isaacs: This is not the practice in the case of men taking vocational training for skilled trades. In the case of business training, maintenance grants are payable, where necessary, in order to provide broadly the reasonable requirements and standard of living to which the applicant is accustomed. For this purpose, as in the case of other comparable resettlement schemes, other income, including the pensions and retired pay payable in a large number of cases, is one of the factors taken into account. I see no justification for altering these arrangements. In all cases the training is provided free.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that in pamphlet P.L.309 issued by his Ministry last year, it is quite clearly stated that the object of the scheme is to ensure that those men and women who serve a period of Regular service in His Majesty's

    15
    Forces should have short courses of training with a view to assisting them to obtain posts? If that is necessary, why should the men and women who have helped themselves and saved up a little be penalised compared with those who have not done so?
    Mr. Isaacs: The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. As I have previously made clear to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), savings are not taken into account. If the hon. and gallant Member will look at my answer, he will see that we wish to maintain the requirements and standards of living to which the applicant is accustomed. As applicants are in various walks of life, we cannot have a fixed rate, otherwise we should be over-generous to some and under-generous to others. Each application is considered on its merits.

    Disabled Persons (Oldham)
    Mr. Leslie Haleasked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to request the Disabled Persons Employment Corporation to make provisions from the Remploy centre in Glodwick Road, Oldham, for the provision of work for those disabled persons in Oldham and in Chadderton, whose disability confines them to their homes.
    Mr. Isaacs: Remploy Limited, will be considering the introduction of home workers' schemes in any district where it is practicable. They have so far established such schemes in connection with nine of their factories. I understand that it may be some time before it is possible to introduce such arrangements at Oldham.
    Mr. Hale: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind there are a large number of disabled persons in Oldham still registered as totally unemployed, many being confined to their homes? This is a magnificent scheme which my right hon. Friend has provided in Oldham, for which we are grateful. The scheme is working very well, but will my right hon. Friend have a word with me to see whether he cannot step it up in Oldham, where it is so important?
    Mr. Isaacs: I should be glad to have a word with my hon. Friend. The problem is whether the kind of work done in the
    16
    Remploy factory is such as to lend itself to out-working schemes—in this case it is woodwork and upholstery. Where the work is not suitable, we have to look around for some alternative. We now have some 200 out-workers employed in the country, and it is the Corporation's intention that such work shall continue.

    Shipbuilding and Engineering (Wage Claim)
    Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make on the recent decision of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions to seek the opinion of their members by ballot as to whether to strike or submit their claim for a wage increase to the National Arbitration Tribunal.
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. But as the answer is long and involved I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Prescott: Is it a fact that the proposed ballot would contravene the provisions of the National Arbitration Order, and if that be so, can the Minister say whether the Government are taking any steps in that respect?
    Mr. Isaacs: May I confine myself to the second part of that supplementary question, and assure the hon. Member that we are in very close touch with the parties? We have had contact with them all the time and are still in contact with them, and we hope to be able to avert any trouble.
    Following is the answer:
    Neither of the parties has reported this dispute to me but I have felt obliged, as a matter of public interest, to draw the attention of the executive of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Trade Unions to certain issues raised by the terms of the ballot. The alternatives presented to the voting members imply that there is a choice between strike action and reporting a dispute to the National Arbitration Tribunal, whereas in fact under the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Orders strikes and lockouts are in general prohibited unless and until a dispute has been reported to me in writing and I have failed to take action prescribed under the Orders. Moreover, the reference of any dispute to the National Arbitration Tribunal is a matter for me and is not left

    17
    to the choice of either party; in certain circumstances there may be other steps that I could take if they seemed expedient and desirable. The Executive of the Confederation have explained that the terms of the ballot were decided under the Confederation rules but each union is at liberty to send an explanatory note to its membership participating in the ballot. In illy view, in a matter of this importance, affecting as it does a very large group of our workpeople, it is essential that there should be no room for misunderstanding as to the law and I have pointed out to the trade unions their responsibility to their membership in this regard.
    I also took advantage of these discussions to ascertain both from the Engineering Employers' Federation and the Confederation the position that had been reached in the negotiations for a new wages structure for the engineering industry. The House will recall that a Court of Inquiry, whose Report dated 25th August, 1948, was laid before this House, recommended that the parties should re-open negotiations on this subject. It seemed to me desirable in the light of this recommendation to see whether even at this stage any steps could usefully be taken to assist the parties to reach some mutually satisfactory agreement on this subject. I found that although the discussions have not so far yielded any satisfactory result, the matter is still open for negotiation. The employers, however, state that they are not in a position to resume discussions while the claim for a £1 a week increase is a live issue.
    I regret that the harmony that usually characterises these great and important industries should he disturbed, particularly at the present critical time in our economic situation. I am keeping a close watch on developments and I need hardly say that I shall he ready at any time to do what I can to assist the parties in arriving at a proper solution to their problems.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)
  Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Labour what action is taken to verify applications for Service deferment on
  18
  grounds of alleged employment in agriculture.
  Mr. Isaacs: When a man registers under the National Service Acts as an agricultural worker, his employer is asked to confirm in writing that he is employed in the occupation stated. If the man entered agricultural employment less than three months before the date he was due to register, special inquiry is made.
  Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable feeling in the countryside that a number of the young sons of farmers are being registered as agricultural workers when the time they give to that employment is a bare minimum? Will my right hon. Friend get his local committees to take up the matter with the county agricultural committees in the case of sons of farmers?
  Mr. Isaacs: In all such cases we use the services of the county agricultural committee. We take every possible step to see that no one unfairly evades his duty of service.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Has the Minister any evidence that these young men are either "cossetted" or "feather-bedded "?

  SCOTLAND

    Nurses' Salaries
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the salaries and conditions of service of health visitors, domiciliary midwives and domiciliary nurses have been excluded from the consideration of the Whitley Council dealing with salaries in the nursing profession; and what action he intends to take to deal with the claims of the members of these excluded branches of this profession.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): Salaries and, conditions of service of these categories of nurses are not excluded from the consideration of the Whitley Council. As stated in reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire West (Mr. Spence) on 28th March last, a claim for salary increases has been rejected by the management side of the Council and is now awaiting arbitration by the Industrial Court.
    Mr. Macdonald: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to increase the salaries of those nurses above the rank of ward sister to prevent the anomalies which are now occurring in the nursing profession in Scotland?
    Mr. McNeil: Those salaries are being considered by the appropriate methods.

    Burghs (Development)
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the resolution passed by the Convention of Royal Burghs on 4th April last to the effect that the development of existing burghs was in the national interest to a degree not less than the creation of new towns; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
    Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir. I fully recognise that the national interest can be. served by the development of existing communities as well as by the creation of new towns. Various burghs and other communities in Scotland are being expanded in pursuance of the Government's policy to secure a better distribution of population and industry and this policy will be continued.
    Mr. Stewart: Has the right hon. Gentleman met representatives of the Convention to discuss this special point, and will he recognise the view of the representatives, which is very widely held in Scotland?
    Mr. McNeil: I have already noted the resolution passed by the Convention and, as usual, I shall be accessible for any representations upon it.

    Roads, Crofter Counties (Grant)
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will, despite the financial stringency, consider a larger annual grant for road making and improvement in the seven crofter counties, in view of the urgent need for this basic facility throughout the whole Highland area.
    Mr. McNeil: I regret that I cannot consider any increase on the amount of £120,000 included in the Estimates for the current year for public works under the provisions of the Congested Districts
    20
    (Scotland) Act, 1897. The existing provision, however, enables greater progress to be made with works of this character than was made before the war when the highest provision in any year was £30,000.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the amount proposed is not enough to cover the more urgent needs of the Isle of Skye, let alone the seven crofter counties, and cannot he do something about taking seriously the problem of roads in the Highlands? Could not he take steps, for example, to see that some of the money from the Road Fund is available for this purpose?
    Mr. McNeil: I quite understand that there are conflicting priorities in this area, but I cannot accept the suggestion that the problem is not being taken seriously. I repeat that this is four times more than was voted in any year before the war.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is impossible for any district council to put its roads in order so that they may be taken over by county councils; that there are 200 communities without any roads at all in the Highlands, and that very special treatment must be given to the Highland region?
    Mr. McNeil: I agree that this is a special problem and special provision, not perhaps as much as anyone would like, but special provision, has been made for this situation.
    Sir David Robertson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the roads in Sutherland are in a disgraceful condition and that there are many unemployed road workers; and would not it be better to put them to work rather than to keep them on the dole?
    Mr. McNeil: I know the roads of Sutherland intimately and love them as much as, no doubt, does the hon. Gentleman. If he has any practical proposition to offer, I shall be glad to listen.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Minister give an assurance that no special privileges will be given to reactionary local authorities who have neglected their responsibilities in the past?

    Housing Estates, Glasgow (Schools)
    Commander Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the present school population in Glasgow Corporation's housing schemes at Priesthill, Househillwood and Pollok, respectively; and what school accommodation has been provided in these three areas;
    (2) what is the estimated cost of conveying schoolchildren from Priesthill, Pollok and Househillwood to schools in other parts of the City of Glasgow during the present financial year; and the estimated cost for the year 1950–51;
    (3) what plans he has to provide permanent school accommodation in the Priesthill, Pollok and Househillwood areas; what number of primary and secondary schools he anticipates will be required; when he intends that building should commence; and when he anticipates that it will be completed.
    Mr. McNeil: The present school population is about 2,300 at Priesthill, 900 at Househillwood, and 4,700 at Pollok, and the number of school places in these areas is 3,210. All secondary pupils and the primary pupils for whom places are not yet available are attending schools in other parts of Glasgow. The cost of transport is at present about £25,000 per annum, and is expected to remain at this figure during the new financial year.
    Three temporary buildings are at present being put up. The Glasgow education authority, who are primarily responsible for providing the necessary schools, estimate that in addition, when housing is completed, nine primary and three secondary schools will be needed. Of these, one primary school has already been started and one secondary school will be started soon, and I hope that it will be possible for the authority to begin at least three more of the primary schools and one more secondary school in 1950. The main buildings will be of traditional construction; the primary schools will take about 21 months to finish, the secondary school three years. Some will have prefabricated annexes which should be ready before the end of this year.
    Commander Galbraith: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it comes about that when there is housing provided for a population of over 30,000 and
    22
    a school population of over 8,000, the proper number of schools was not provided at the same time?
    Mr. McNeil: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, there is a dual responsibility on this subject. However, I am not really concerned to try to find who was blameworthy. I am concerned to co-operate with the local authorities in trying to redress the unbalance to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has quite properly drawn attention.
    Commander Galbraith: In effect, is not it a deplorable example of the lack of planning by a Socialist local authority who have been in power for a number of years?
    Mr. McNeil: I remember the hon. and gallant Gentleman had a very prominent place in that local authority on which he now throws the blame.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Women Officers' Titles
    Mr. Deedesasked the Secretary of State for War what are the administrative reasons for the recent change in women officers' titles.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): The recent change whereby male rank titles were extended to women officers serving in the Army was made primarily in the interests of administrative simplicity.
    Mr. Deedes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the women's organisations themselves sought this change, and is he aware that it has caused some resentment among serving officers as tending to make not only the women but the Army also look a trifle ridiculous?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I think the change meets the wishes and views of the women officers concerned.

    Pay Offices (Clerks)
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he is aware that the replacement of civilian clerks by National Service men in Army pay offices is leading to unemployment among these temporary civil servants; and if he will reconsider the decision to employ young soldiers on this type of work;
    (2) if he is aware that the employment of successive batches of National Service men in Army pay offices makes continuity of work in these offices difficult and is detrimental to efficiency. and if he will stop this practice.
    Mr. Strachey: Soldiers must be employed in Army pay offices in this country in order to provide trained staff for pay offices overseas. Enough National Service men are employed to make good the shortage of Regular soldiers and to produce a trained military reserve to meet the requirements of the Pay Services on mobilisation. The rundown of work and the reorganisation of pay offices make it inevitable that some temporary clerks should become redundant.
    National Service men are employed in pay offices according to a phased programme and are fully trained before taking up full duties in an office. The accounting system now being introduced is designed to allow for the employment of National Service men and I am satisfied that their employment is not detrimental to efficiency.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Has the Minister received any representation from the Civil Service Clerical Association on this matter-about efficiency?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.
    Mr. A. R. W. Low: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a complete waste of the use of National Service men. If he wants trained men on mobilisation, he could get them by taking them from civilian firms where a lot of men have been doing this sort of thing. Is it not a complete waste of the Services of National Service men?
    Mr. Strachey: I should have thought it was wise to provide a certain limited number of National Service men trained in this work for use immediately on mobilisation.
    Mr. Molson: Are the men selected for this particular sedentary job, medically unfit for any other active service?
    Mr. Strachey: Not necessarily, but I think it is right that a certain number of men suitable for this type of work should be se used.

    Vehicles (Reconditioning)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for War what expenditure will be incurred by his Department in the current financial year for reconditioning Service vehicles; and what steps he is taking to overcome the criticisms of the Select Committee on Estimates on this type of expenditure during the financial year 1949–50.
    Mr. Strachey: Provision has been made in Army Estimates 1950–51 for the expenditure of some £10 million on the reconditioning and normal repair of wheeled vehicles. The recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates are being considered by my Department and a report will be made to the Committee in the near future.
    Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the fact that the figure estimated for this year for the Army is about the same as last year, will not the right hon. Gentleman speed up the consideration of this report and review the whole policy of reconditioning wheeled vehicles, which is what the Committee recommended?
    Mr. Strachey: We could, of course, cease to recondition wheeled vehicles, but that would mean very heavy purchases of new vehicles, to which there are great objections.

    Troopships (Conditions)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War what complaints have been received regarding the accommodation and conditions generally in the s.s. "Empire Test," s.s. "Eastern Prince" and s.s. "Empress of Australia," trooping to the Middle East; what is the average number of persons accommodated in each cabin; and whether he is aware that trooping conditions in these ships are worse than were trooping conditions between the wars.
    Mr. Strachey: The number of complaints regarding the accommodation and conditions on these vessels is very small compared with the number of passengers carried and in most cases they concern matters which can be rectified during the voyage. The average number of berths per cabin is, in the "Empire Test" 4.4, in the "Eastern Prince" (now renamed "Empire Medway ") 5.5, and in the "Empress of Australia" 7. The shipping

    25
    position since the war has necessitated the continued employment of these vessels and other troopships which were part of the war-time fleet. They have been considerably improved, but they are scheduled to be withdrawn from service as soon as possible.
    Major Beamish: May I ask the Minister not to judge conditions by the small number of complaints he has received, bearing in mind the normal Service procedure? Is he aware that trooping conditions before the war could have been much improved but they are far worse now than they were then, and will he look most carefully into this question?
    Mr. Strachey: I would not agree with the last part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement. The solution is to get into service the new troopships which are fitted to quite a new standard. Some are coming into service, and we hope to have all troopships on this new standard within the next two or three years.
    Brigadier Head: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the retention in service of these out-of-date troopships is a very poor introduction to foreign service for young National Service men posted overseas?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. That is why we are bringing these new ships into use.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Will the Minister explain exactly what.5 of a berth means in actual practice?
    Mr. Strachey: Evidently the hon. Member is not familiar with the conception of an average.

    Accommodation (Canal Zone)
    Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War how many single other ranks are living in tents in the Canal Zone; and what percentage this is of the total other ranks strength in that area.
    Mr. Strachey: I have called for this information and will circulate an answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Major Beamish: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it takes so long to get this information? Have the wireless and telephone broken down? Is not this information readily available as soon as he asks for it?
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. Gentleman's Question appeared on the Order Paper only on Saturday, and I do not think it an unreasonable delay.
    Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state how many married officers or other ranks in the Canal Zone who wish for a married quarter have not been allotted one; and what is the average time that these families have been waiting for a quarter.
    Mr. Strachey: There are 470 officers and 993 other ranks in the Canal Zone who wish for a married quarter and have not yet been allotted one. The average time that these families have been waiting is rather more than a year. We are providing at least 300 more temporary married quarters in the Canal Zone during this financial year.

  COUNCIL FOR WALES
  Mr. George Thomasasked the Prime Minister what subjects he has submitted for the consideration of the Advisory Council for Wales; and whether he will seek their opinion on the subject of a capital city for Wales.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is for the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire to settle their own agenda, and while I do not exclude the possibility of the Government wishing to ask their advice on specific subjects in special circumstances, we have not so far found it necessary to do so, and it is, I am sure, better that as a general rule the initiative should come from them. One of their main duties is to secure that the Government are adequately informed of the impact of Government activities on the life of the people of Wales and Monmouthshire, and they are the best judges of the priority which they should give to different topics. It is open to the Council to express views on the Subject Of a capital city for Wales, but I do not propose to suggest that they should single it out for special consideration.
  Mr. Thomas: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say in the last part of his reply that he was not making representations to the Council?
  The Prime Minister: No, I am not making representations.
  Mr. Thomas: In view of the representations that have been made to the Government in very reasonable form, and the inability of the Government to reach a decision on this matter, will he now refer it to the representatives of Wales themselves?
  The Prime Minister: I am not quite clear to which matter the hon. Member is referring.

  WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES
  Sir Ian Fraserasked the Prime Minister whether he will now appoint a Select Committee or other similar inquiry to consider war pensions and allowances.
  The Prime Minister: Full information as to the war pension provisions and the many improvements that have been made in recent years has been made available to hon. Members, and the Government are not persuaded that any inquiry is necessary.
  Sir I. Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a committee of Members of all parties, looking into this matter in the quiet of a committee room, would undoubtedly discover that His Majesty's recent Government in many respects did well for ex-Service men and women, but that there is still much to be done, and does he not think that the Members of this House and the public would like to feel that after a second major war a full review of the whole situation has taken place?
  The Prime Minister: There is, as the hon. Member knows, a Central Advisory Committee which meets frequently. In addition to leading members of ex-Service men's organisations, there are upon it hon. Members of all parties in this House, including, I think, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir. I. Fraser). There is no subject upon which the Government are more fully provided with information than this one. Therefore, I do not think that it is necessary to set up a special committee.
  Sir I. Fraser: But is the Prime Minister aware that the Central Advisory Committee does not publish its agenda or its minutes; and would not great goodwill be brought about if this matter could be dealt with in the manner I have suggested.
  The Prime Minister: No. I think the matter would be better ventilated and debated in this House if it is desired to ventilate it. There is very full information on this matter.

  PUBLIC SERVICE (SECURITY)
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with Cabinet rank as Minister of Cold War Defence, to be responsible for matters of security affecting the public service.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Sir W. Smithers: Is the Prime Minister aware that if he does not do something quickly and effectively to stop Communist infiltration, we shall be forced to the conclusion either that he does not mean business, that he does not realise the danger, or that he is afraid of the fellow-travellers who sit behind him?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid 1 can never be sure what conclusions the hon. Member will draw from anything.
  Sir W. Smithers: I should have said "beside him" as well.

  OPENCAST MINING
  Mr. Nabarroasked the Prime Minister whether he will establish a committee, of which the Minister of Fuel and Power, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and the Minister of Works would be members, for the purpose of preventing opencast coal mining upon good agricultural land and in areas of special scenic beauty.
  The Prime Minister: It is not the normal practice to announce the existence or the composition of particular committees of the Cabinet, but I can assure the hon. Member that all the Ministers concerned are fully consulted on the points referred to in his Question before any scheme is approved.
  Mr. Nabarro: Is the Prime Minister aware that the existing machinery for defining areas suitable for opencast coal mining is both complicated and cumbersome, and generally results in areas of

  29
  high agricultural productive value being taken for that purpose, together with areas of special scenic beauty, and what steps will he take to abate this disaster?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think so. There is adequate consideration given now. Of course, what we are suffering from is neglect in the past when nothing was done about this.
  Mr. Turton: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is general concern about the waste of good agricultural land for opencast coal mining, and that the present system is not working properly? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter in order to ensure that good agricultural land is not taken for this purpose.
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Member is correct.

  MINISTERS (DATE OF APPOINTMENT)
  Sir H. Williamsasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Statutory Instrument No. 297 of 1950 was signed by the Minister of National Insurance in that capacity seven days before her acceptance of that office; and whether he will take stops to avoid a recurrence of such an incident.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is, I am afraid, under a misapprehension. The ceremony of kissing of hands, to which I assume he refers, is the traditional manner in which a subject returns thanks for and acknowledges at His Majesty's convenience an honour or favour conferred upon him. It has no significance in relation to the acceptance of the ministerial office in question. If acceptance of the office is necessary to constitute an effective appointment-and this is a matter of considerable doubt acceptance in fact took place before the signature of the Statutory Instrument referred to by the hon. Member.
  Sir H. Williams: In what way does the date become known on which a Minister is effectively appointed?
  The Prime Minister: In this case the Minister took the oath of office required under the Promissory Oaths Act before the Lord President on 2nd March. On 28th February formal approval was given. The Statutory Instrument was
  30
  signed on 7th March. The Minister's audience by the King was held on 15th March. There was nothing done here which was not in the ordinary course of events.
  Sir H. Williams: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the authoritative publication on this matter, Halsbury's "Laws of England," commits itself to the statement that the acceptance of office is indicated by the kissing of the King's hand, and is he aware, therefore, that his statement today is in complete conflict with that authoritative document?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid I do not know that particular document, but I have consulted the highest authorities on this matter. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong on the matter of kissing hands. He is confusing that with what happens in connection with certain offices when there is the handing over of the seals.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Empire Tobacco (Duty)
    Mr. Russellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of duty ad valorem would have to be charged on Empire tobacco to bring in the same amount of revenue as the present specific Duty.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): On the basis of current conditions the present specific Duty is equivalent to about 164 times the import value. But there are variable factors which introduce a considerable amount of uncertainty into the comparison.
    Mr. Russell: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that a monstrously high rate to put on an Empire product, and will he consider having it reduced?
    Mr. Jay: I am afraid I cannot anticipate this afternoon's Business.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Hollisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under his regulations, if an author arranges that money due to him for literary work for a foreign company is paid not to him but to a

    31
    recognised British charity, he is then liable for Income Tax and Surtax on that money.
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hollis: Is the hon Gentleman aware that if an author assigns the rights of a work to a charity, he is, apparently, not liable for Surtax? Is there a valid reason why there should be a distinction between the two different transactions?
    Mr. Jay: I gather from the hon. Gentleman's Question that in this case the money was due to the writer in question for literary work. In that case he is liable for tax whatever he desires to do with the money.
    Mr. Hollis: The Question was specific. It asked whether, if an author allows money due to him from a foreign company to be paid instead to a recognised British charity-in which case he never sees the money himself-he is liable for Income Tax and Surtax on that money?
    Mr. Jay: It depends on the precise arrangement by which he does it.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is it not a fact that when somebody is paid to broadcast over the B.B.C., he can ask for the fee due to him to be paid to a charity, in which case the person concerned is not liable for tax?
    Mr. Jay: That is another question.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Pay-As-You-Earn liability of a number of employees of a Surbiton firm, particulars of which have been sent to him, has been raised notwithstanding that their pay remains the same.
    Mr. Jay: I have written to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his letter does nothing except disclose a practice under which the Inland Revenue raise a man's tax liability in an attempt to obtain the return of an Income Tax return form; and is it not a fact that in this particular case drastic action was taken without any inquiry being made as to whether the taxpayer had received the demand at all?
    Mr. Jay: That is not what my letter says at all. It says that unless, after
    32
    repeated reminders, the taxpayer makes the necessary claims, it is not possible to allow them.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that in this case no inquiry was made whether the demand form had been received before this drastic action was taken?
    Mr. Jay: In this case repeated reminders were sent, and therefore I think it reasonable to assume that they were received.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Oh, no.
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how awards to mine rescue squads are treated for Income Tax purposes under his regulations.
    Mr. Jay: Payments received by mine rescue workers are liable to tax as remuneration of their employment.

    Pound (Purchasing Power)
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the purchasing value of the pound in each of the years since 1938 up to the present time.
    The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Gaitskell): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Taking the purchasing power of the pound as 100 in 1938, the figures for each of the years since, and at the latest avail? able date, are as follow: 1938, 100; 1939, 97; 1940, 83; 1941, 75 1942, 70; 1943, 68; 1944, 67; 1945, 65; 1946, 63; 1947, 59; 1948, 55; 1949, 54; February, 1950, 52.

    War Damage Repairs (Mecklenberg Square)
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total amount of payments made in respect of war damage repairs in Mecklenberg Square, including the amount paid on houses subsequently demolished.
    Mr. Jay: The War Damage Commission tell me that about £27,000 has been paid by way of cost of works payments

    33
    for the repair of houses in Mecklenberg Square. For those houses which were destroyed only value payments were made.
    Mr. Donnelly: Will my hon. Friend take steps to bring these figures to the notice of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning before action is taken to proceed with the present proposals for the conversion of Mecklenberg Square to its new purpose?
    Mr. Jay: Certainly.

    Property Acquisition (Compensation)
    Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the case of certain dwelling houses in Romford Road and New North Road, Dagenham, occupied by their owners, and recently acquired compulsorily by the London County Council, particulars of which have been supplied to him, the assessment of compensation payable to the owners will exclude any value attributable to vacant possession; and what steps he is taking to remedy this injustice.
    Mr. Jay: Parliament decided, in considering the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, that public authorities should not be compelled to pay inflated prices attributable to vacant possession. There is no action which I can take in the particular cases to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Hutchinson: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise how unfairly this Section of the Act is operating in the case of these owner-occupiers? Surely, in the circumstances, some action ought to be taken, particularly as this Section of the Act does not appear to have been adequately considered in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Jay: This decision was made by Parliament after debate in 1947, and we cannot act now except in accordance with the law.
    Mr. Hutchinson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Historic Buildings (Committee's Report)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received the report of the Gowers Committee on buildings of outstanding historic or architectural interest; and when it will be published.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: My right hon. and learned Friend has received this report, and will make a statement about publication in due course.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to postpone publication of the report until the Government's views can be announced?
    Mr. Jay: That is now being considered.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

    Redundancy (Ex-Service Men)
    Mr. Ecclesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now reconsider the rule of "last in, first out," when making redundancies in Government establishments, since this application penalises ex-Service men and introduces a test which is not based on, efficiency.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: The order of discharge of temporary staff on redundancy is governed by National Whitley Council agreements which make special provision for ex-Service men and women, and provide for the discharge out of turn of those found unable to carry out the duties of their grade with due efficiency. I do not consider that these agreements require revision.
    Mr. Eccles: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it fair, as actually happens now, that an ex-Service man should lose his job simply because he was away fighting and citizens of Eire were taken on first? Does the Financial Secretary think that the management or directorate of a Government Department can build up an efficient force if this is to be the test of redundancy?
    Mr. Jay: The facts are not quite as the hon. Gentleman states them. In applying the principle of "first in, last out," the ex-Service people of the 1939–45 war may count the whole of their service towards their seniority provided they

    35
    joined the Civil Service within three months of leaving the Forces.
    Mr. Vane: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this same principle of "last in, first out" applies also to Parliamentary Secretaries?
    Mr. Alport: With regard to entitlement, in considering length of service within Government service, can service before 1939 be counted by an ex-Regular soldier in considering his status with regard to redundancy?

    Officials (Power of Entry)
    Mr. Remnantasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what are the limited category of cases where officials have power to carry out inspections and investigations in private homes, not used for business purposes, without a search warrant; how many officials have such power, and for what purposes.
    Mr. Jay: Nine hundred and ninety-three War Damage Commission assessors have power to enter to assess claims on the Commission. One thousand four hundred and nine Inland Revenue valuers have power to enter to value property for Death Duties, for claims on the Development Fund and for development charges. This Department has also recently taken over rating valuation work from local authorities, and an additional 1,124 officials are now employed in its Rating Valuation Branch. These officials have power to enter to value property for rating purposes. I regret that my reply to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. De la Bere) on 6th April omitted this last class of officials from the category entitled to enter private homes. Since I gave that reply, I have also learned that, in the case of civil aviation, these powers are only granted on exceptional occasions, to individual officials, and, so far, this has never been done.
    Mr. Remnant: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to undertake to make further inquiry with a view to finding out whether all these powers are still necessary?
    Mr. Jay: I will certainly make that inquiry.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity of making it clear that the means test officer, whose inspections and investigations were so much feared in the past by His Majesty's loyal citizens, is no longer in operation?
    Mr. Jay: That is so.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY (PERMANENT STAFF)
  Mr. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War on what basis Regular officers and permanent staff are at present allocated to units of the Territorial Army; and when their number will be increased.
  Mr. Strachey: At present, a limited number of Regular field officers are appointed, in accordance with Territorial Army permanent staff scales, to command major units where no suitable Territorial Army officer is available, or to act as second-in-command, in special cases where the unit is newly formed, or converted from another arm or where subunits are widely dispersed. In addition, appointments for adjutants and for quarter-masters are all filled by full-time officers, the majority of whom are Regular officers. The scale for permanent staff other ranks and civilians depends upon the type of unit and the number of subunits. New permanent staff scales, which are likely to give a substantial increase, are being prepared. I hope they will be ready shortly and I will place a copy of them in the Library of the House. They will provide a Regular field officer for every major unit in the Territorial Army.
  Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there will be enough members of the Regular Army to fill the places when this comes into operation?
  Mr. Strachey: There are enough, of course, but whether there are enough to fulfil these and other duties is another matter.
  Mr. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War how many Regular officers and other ranks are at present serving with units of the Territorial Army; and how many it is estimated these numbers will be on 31st March, 1951.
  Mr. Strachey: On 28th February, 1950, 1,483 Regular officers and 3,714 Regular other ranks were serving with units of the

  37
  Territorial Army. Until the new permanent staff scales now in preparation have been implemented, it will not be possible to estimate the numbers on 31st March, 1951.

  ARMY PAY OFFICES (MECHANICAL ACCOUNTING)
  Brigadier Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the records in Army pay offices are now kept by mechanical means.
  Mr. Strachey: Soldiers' accounts held by Army pay offices in the United Kingdom are maintained by accounting machines. The machine system of accounting is being extended to Army pay offices overseas, most of which at present maintain soldiers' accounts by hand.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN
  The Right Honourable Sir Frank Soskice, K.C., for Sheffield, Neepsend.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS AND ECONOMIC SURVEY
  3.33 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): We have now settled into the custom of dealing with the Economic Survey and the Budget together, and I propose therefore to follow the same pattern as I have followed before, by dealing first with the Economic Survey and the general economic situation before coming to the details of our finances and of my Budget proposals.
  We have, I think, achieved in recent years a very large measure of agreement in this country that the Government-whatever its complexion-must accept responsibility for the general economic health of the whole community. That is a revolution in economic thinking and in Government responsibility, a revolution so complete that it is often entirely overlooked. As to the objective of economic health and the responsibility of Parliament, I imagine that there will be no difference in this Committee. Upon the symptoms by which that health may be judged we may not agree; upon the ways of achieving that health there is no doubt that the two sides of the Committee take widely different views.

  DEMOCRATIC PLANNING
  There has been a very marked tendency in the Press, in its review of the economic situation following upon the publication of the Economic Survey, to comment to the effect that the Survey for 1950 marks the abandonment of all attempts to plan our economy. That is, perhaps, a somewhat peculiar complaint by those who profess to be opposed to planning. It has always been difficult to explain, especially to those who did not wish to understand, the real object and the limitations of democratic planning. In two earlier documents this has been explained at some length, in the 1947 Survey and the long-term programme, and on numerous occasions in speeches. I must, however, in view of the obvious continued misunderstanding, try to explain the position once again.
  Democratic planning has for its objective to combine a free democracy with a planned economy. That synthesis is not an easy one, though I believe it is absolutely vital to the continuance of democratic freedom in the world. We are out after something a great deal more important than a good piece of planning machinery or even than a particular way of organising our industries and services. Our aim is to create a Happy Country in which there is equality of opportunity, and not too great a disparity of personal incomes, and in which every man and woman can feel that they are welcomed and have a full part to play and are invited to take their share in the democratic control of their country's economy.
  It is basic to that kind of life that there should be full employment and full participation by the workers in the industrial life of the community. How particular planning operations are carried out or how particular industries are organised is only important in so far as such matters are essential steps in attaining the goal at which we aim. It is not possible any more than it is desirable in such a democratically planned economy, to use the violent compulsions that are appropriate to totalitarian planning. Nor would it be sensible to attempt to decide from the centre all the details of production and distribution. Such day-to-day decisions must obviously be made by individual undertakings within the broad framework of national policy laid down by the Government.
  It follows, therefore, from these two reasons—the democratic nature of our planning and the necessity for avoiding over-centralisation—that while we dan and must use some financial and physical controls, yet a great part of the direction and control of the economy must be accomplished by agreement, persuasion, consultation and other free democratic methods. While therefore we can forecast what is likely to happen or map the possibilities offered for achievement, it is not possible to lay down a rigid target and say that it will be achieved, since in many cases there can be no democratic method of making sure of that achievement. That is not a failure of planning, but a recognition of the fact that there must be limitations to the capacity of a democracy to force the
  40
  implementation of any economic plan which it lays down.
  Some controls are acceptable to a democracy—rationng is a good example —and we have in fact been able, by controls, to prevent many undesirable economic results which would in these post-war years have militated against the achievement of our aims. Some positive controls, too, have been and can be used, especially in the area of public expenditure, such for instance as the building of factories in the development areas.
  Indeed, the Budget itself can be described as the most important control and as the most powerful instrument for influencing economic policy which is available to the Government. During the last Parliament its influence was brought strongly to bear against inflation, by reducing the excess purchasing power in our economy. We have thus been able, while maintaining full employment, to stimulate rapidly the development of our export trade and thereby tc help towards a solution of our balance of payments problem. Our very considerable success proves indeed the value and efficacy of our budgetary planning.
  What has been so remarkable over the last three or four years is that so many people of every section of the population and of all shades of political opinion have played their part in the organised voluntary effort to achieve the economic goals set out in the Surveys. Because of this combination of moderate controls democratically accepted by the nation and the people's willingness to follow voluntarily the directions set out, we have in fact succeeded in a large measure—I would say a very large measure—in keeping to the difficult path of economic progress that we have planned in this postwar period. The Economic Survey for 1950 shows the degree of our success in 1949 in following that road and indicates how we can proceed a further stage in the same right direction.

  EXTERNAL ECONOMIC SITUATION
  The year 1949 was certainly not a dull year from the economic point of view. It was marked, indeed, by that summer crisis, which generally seems to occur somewhere in the world over something, but which this time was in a form that particularly affected the relation between the sterling and the dollar areas and

  41
  which led to the drastic decision to devalue sterling. The first quarter of 1949 showed the general recovery in our external finances as continuing. Let me here warn the Committee that there is a seasonal tendency for the first quarter)l the year to appear somewhat overpromising. We achieved a small surplus in our overseas payments, and our reserves of gold and dollars actually showed a small increase.
  What happened after that first quarter up till devaluation is well known to the Committee, and was fully debated in the House at the time of devaluation. A decline in the dollar receipts of the sterling area and an increase in its outgoings led to a heavy draft upon our depleted reserves, and this, in turn, intensified the development of those speculative movements which had already been engendered by the most damaging gossip that had been rife as to the possible devaluation of sterling.
  We had, of course, before we decided to devalue weighed very carefully the likely effects upon our economy of that devaluation, and now, after six months' experience, we can say that, so far as we can at present judge, events have moved rather more favourably for us than we then anticipated. This is due to a complex of causes including, I believe, the inherent soundness of our own economy and the fact that the world is convinced that we are prepared to take the most drastic steps to guard the strength of sterling and its use as a basis for a wide area of multilateral trade throughout the world.
  Since September last our exports have recovered sharply, and preliminary information indicates that the volume in the first quarter of this year was nearly 10 per cent. above that of the first quarter of last year. We are at the moment in overall balance-indeed, almost certainly in overall surplus-with the rest of the world, and, as was clear from the figures I gave the House a few days ago, we have made a satisfactory beginning to the recovery of our gold and dollar reserves.
  When we look forward to the rest of 1950 it is difficult and hazardous to make any forecast. We do not yet know what will happen as regards Marshall Aid for 1950–51, and we have not yet seen the end of the changes brought about by devaluation. The evidence of the first quarter of
  42
  the year, however, tends to show that our exports are expanding in a satisfactory way and that our export prices are still fully competitive over a wide range of goods. But we must remember that both Germany and Japan are coming back into the international markets and that, even apart from that fact, competition is likely to intensify in the coming months. This should bring home to us the very great importance of doing all we can nationally and internationally to maintain the expansion of world markets, for any general contraction is bound to have a particularly adverse effect upon our world-wide trade.
  We have estimated that our receipts from visible exports may reach £2.000 million for the year 1950, some £200 million more than in 1949. On the invisible items of the balance of payments we expect a distinct improvement, in particular with respect to oil, shipping and tourist earnings.
  So far as imports are concerned, we have, of course, suffered a serious worsening of the terms of trade since devaluation; if we denote those terms of trade in 1947 by the index number 100, then between September, 1949, and the present time they have moved against us from 98 to 108. We hope that we have now seen the full extent of the rise in import prices, but prediction is most difficult in this field as it depends on so many factors over which we can have no control at all. The most important is, of course, the level of business activity in the United States, but we are also affected by the level at which farm prices are there maintained. We expect, however, despite the difficulties to be in a position to obtain the necessary raw materials for our expanded production.
  So far as food supplies are concerned, 1949 showed a marked improvement over earlier years and, on the whole, we were able to keep down import prices. There are far fewer shortages in the shops today, and the volume of the ration has now risen in a number of commodities. The outlook is not unfavourable, despite our difficult negotiations with the Argentine.
  Taking the picture of our external economic position as a whole, we hope during 1950 to convert an overall deficit of about £70 million into an overall surplus of about £50 million. I would here stress to the Committee the importance

  43
  of our being in a position to earn an overall surplus. Marshall Aid, which has been and is such an immense help to us, is declining and will disappear at latest in 1952; our Canadian credits will also be exhausted in the near future. Not only so, but from 1951 the question of the service of the American and Canadian debts will confront us. We must also have available some surplus to assist in Commonwealth and in colonial development. Over and above all this it is essential for us—as I shall show in a moment—to increase our gold reserves.

  GOLD AND DOLLAR POSITION
  So far I have for the most part been dealing with the United Kingdom overseas balance of payments, but I must now turn to what is the concern of the whole sterling area; that is, the balance of gold and dollar payments arising out of the transactions of the whole sterling area with the rest of the world. This matter is dealt with rather more fully in the Economic Survey this year, as there has been a tendency, I think, to misunderstand and confuse the relation between our own overseas balance of trade and the dollar balance of the sterling area as a whole.
  The main purpose of our overseas economic policy is, of course, to eliminate the dollar deficit in the sterling area's accounts. I gave the House the figures for the dollar transactions a day or two ago. These showed a small surplus for the quarter which is the result of, I think, a most creditable performance by both this country and the other countries of the sterling area.
  There is one item amongst those transactions to which I should like to refer. At the request of the Newfoundland Government we repaid the balance of nine million dollars outstanding from the interest-free loan of 12,300.000 dollars which they made to us during the war. I cannot let this occasion pass without expressing once again, I am sure on behalf of everyone in this Committee and in this country, our most grateful thanks for that very present help in our time of trouble.
  The small dollar surplus which we earned in the first quarter of this year is the result of a number of temporary factors, including the after-effects of
  44
  devaluation, as well as of some more permanent factors. One of the very important influences is the strong buying by the United States of primary products from the sterling area. I must, therefore, warn the Committee and the country against relying too much upon the continuance of this favourable trend, but let me also bring to their notice that, if and when less favourable results appear, it will not mean that all our affairs have gone radically wrong. We must expect some variations, but if external circumstances continue' as they are today there is no reason why we should anticipate any dangerous change for the worse in our situation.
  There is no doubt that a major element in our improved position is the reduction of the expenditure of dollars which we have brought about both upon visible and invisible imports. Since 1948 we have secured economies in dollar expenditure by the United Kingdom alone at the rate of 900 million dollars a year, reducing the annual rate of dollar expenditure to 2,000 million from 2,900 million in 1948. The Colonies and the sterling countries of the Commonwealth have also made very large economies and we hope that these will be continued. They have to some extent been made possible by the United Kingdom's ability to supply at fully competitive prices a greater quantity and larger range of their needs in imports. All this is a real and a continuing gain to our balance of payments. It means that the inescapable commitments upon our gold and dollar reserves for primary necessities have been and are still being steadily reduced.
  There is another aspect of this matter no less important, and that is the saving that we have been able to make, since devaluation, in marginal gold payments. As the Committee knows there are a number of countries, such as Belgium and Switzerland, to whom we have had to make balancing gold or dollar payments from time to time over the past few years, mainly in respect of purchases from them by ourselves or other countries of the sterling area. Since devaluation, owing to our better competitive position, we have been able to replace these payments to a very large extent by exports to those countries of sterling area goods, thus saving the drain upon our gold reserves.
  On the side of dollar-earning, the progress of United Kingdom exports has not

  45
  been quite so marked. We are gradually expanding our sales to the United States and Canada, and to the other American account countries, the importance of whose trade must not be overlooked. In this task I would like to commend very highly the contribution of the Dollar Exports Board, under the most effective leadership of Sir Cecil Weir. We have, I am glad to say, now reached the point where the increased volume of United Kingdom dollar sales is earning us dollars in excess of the rate of dollar-earning immediately before devaluation.
  But, of course, the biggest element of dollar-earning by the sterling area is in respect of the income from the sales to the dollar area of such primary commodities as rubber, wool, jute, tin, cocoa and so on. Experience shows—as indeed one would expect—,that very large fluctuations indeed take place in these sales from month to month, apart altogether from their seasonal character. In recent months, these sales have been at a high level, but they might at any time fall off temporarily, if there were a weakening of internal demand in the dollar area. That is one reason why a decrease in our dollar spending is so essential to bettering our payments position because that is a regular and controllable saving, whereas the dollar-earning of the sterling area is much more uncertain and is not, of course, within our power to determine.
  This brings me to a consideration of our reserves. At 1,984 million dollars they are a little bigger than a year ago, but they are still considerably below what they were at the beginning of the Marshall. Plan in March, 1948—which was itself a wholly inadequate level compared with our needs or our pre-war position when, making adjustments for the relative values of money, they were, in effect, four to five times as great as at present. Indeed, the changes in our reserves which took place last summer and led to such a drastic step as devaluation would have probably been very little noticed by world opinion if we had then had our pre-war volume of reserve. There was, in fact, as many will remember, between March, 1938, and March, 1939, a fall of £241 million sterling or over 1,000 million dollars in our gold reserve which we were able to handle quite comfortably and without any effect upon the external value of the £.
  It is the smallness of our reserves much more than the unavoidable degree of
  46
  fluctuation in our earnings that is now our real trouble. That is why we must build up those reserves in every way we can so as to have more in hand to meet the quite normal and inevitable fluctuations in the dollar income of the sterling area that we shall encounter when Marshall Aid comes to the end in 1952.
  One very encouraging feature in this situation is the almost universal recognition now given to the fact that this problem of the dollar gap is not one for the debtor countries only. Recent speeches by Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Howe in Canada and by Mr. Acheson and Mr. Hoffman and others in the United States have emphasised strongly the need for open markets in the dollar countries if there is to be a real chance of bringing the overseas payments between the dollar area and the rest of the world into balance. I am sure, too, that we must all be greatly encouraged by the appointment by the President of the United States of Mr. Gordon Gray as a special adviser for the very purpose of examining and advising upon this situation.
  We shall continue to concert measures with the Commonwealth, with our European neighbours in O.E.E.C., and with our Canadian and American friends to bring about a solution to this problem of the dollar gap. Continuous action by all the peoples concerned is certainly called for, since the solution of this economic problem is absolutely fundamental to the security of world democracy and to the survival of Western European civilisation.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
  The Organisation for European Economic Co-operation has, I think, made quite remarkable progress over the last year, and in that we have played our full part. It is no simple task to lay the foundation in statistical and economic services and organisation for a close and friendly co-operation between 17 countries, with the most widely varying political and economic outlook, many of whom have been at political or economic enmity over long periods in the past. It requires a great fund of goodwill and understanding as well as the appropriate machinery,
  Yet I can say with complete conviction that the very distinguished and devoted body of international and national

  47
  civil servants who have been working at Paris for the last two years, and amongst whom this country is very well represented, have succeeded in bringing about a degree of co-operation and understanding which I regard as little short of miraculous. It is only necessary to study the Second Report of O.E.E.C. to appreciate that fact.
  But there are other very real accomplishments besides this. The Second Report of the Organisation points out that the growth of production last year has been higher than was ever expected at 25 per cent. above that of 1947, and indeed it is now above pre-war level. This is a great step forward towards that viability by 1952 which is the goal of all European countries. It is, too, a great tribute to the efficacy of Marshall Aid, for which all the democratic world must be grateful. As the Report says:
  " Four to five billion dollars a year of aid has permitted an expansion of annual output of about 30 billion dollars."
  That is a pretty successful pump-priming operation. We were very glad to be able to record our gratitude and admiration of those responsible for the initiation and carrying out of that great scheme at the time of the celebration of the second anniversary of its coming into operation.
  We have gone a long way during the past year to remove restrictions upon imports into this country in accordance with the suggestion we made at O.E.E.C. and which was there adopted. We believe that for a great trading community like our own, with markets in every country of the world, the fullest possible removal of trade restrictions is beneficial, provided we can maintain the controls necessary to safeguard our balance of payments and our reserves, and to carry out that degree of planning which is essential for the maintenance of full employment in our own country.
  Within the framework of O.E.E.C. we have been able to agree with certain other countries, notably the Scandinavian countries whose economies are somewhat similar to our own, to go further and get rid of certain controls on invisible payments. We hope to be able to continue that general line of policy.
  We are now, as the Committee knows, engaged in an attempt to extend still further the transferability of sterling and
  48
  other European currencies under a European payments scheme which will be better adapted for continuance after Marshall Aid is completed than the schemes which have hitherto operated. I cannot now go into the details of this matter, which is under discussion between O.E.E.C. countries, but I should like to make clear that we are determined, if it is by any means possible, to play our full part in such a scheme, though we must, of course, see to it that the position of sterling, as an international currency which facilitates a great deal of multilateral trade today, is not jeopardised.
  Whatever comes out of our discussions —and we hope it will be a successful scheme—we must ourselves, as responsible for sterling in the world, move steadily forward towards the goal of the maximum multilateral use of our currency. We have over the past two years been gradually extending the transferability of sterling, until today probably half of the world's international trade and commerce is carried by sterling. This is a fine achievement in the face of all the post-war difficulties, and it has been of great service to the world; but it has only been accomplished at considerable cost to ourselves.
  There is one other aspect of this problem to which I must refer. A balance of payments between the sterling and dollar areas depends not only upon dollars being more plentiful but also upon sterling itself not being too plentiful. I have dealt with the means by which we hope to make dollars more plentiful in relation to demand, but we must not neglect the other aspect of the problem—the possible over-supply of sterling. Some such over-supply has been almost unavoidable since the war in view of our desire to maintain the full multilateral nature of sterling and our obligations to our fellow members of the sterling area. Political considerations, too, have played a considerable part in our attempt to encourage a more stable situation in various parts of the world which were behind-hand with their economic development and where, in consequence. the pressure of the cold war was very heavy. As I have already stated in the House, we are now being more careful its regard to the supply of sterling, especially in view of the rapid decrease and ultimate elimination of dollar aid.

  INTERNAL ECONOMIC SITUATION
  I can now relate this review of ow external economic policy, and what we have achieved, to our internal economy. The greatest internal danger to the success of our external policies has been, and still is, inflation. If internal inflationary forces were to get the upper hand in our economy our balance of payments position, both overall and in dollars, would deteriorate disastrously, and the reaction of the rest of the world to any such inflation would become a most potent factor in weakening the position of sterling. We must therefore avoid any development of inflationary tendencies which would prevent us from obtaining by importation the raw materials without which our programme of increasing production and full employment would collapse in ruins.
  The continued growth of production, so much of which is based upon imported raw materials, is the outstanding feature of our internal economic situation. During 1949, industrial production, as strictly defined, rose by 6–1 per cent. in real terms. Over the wider field of business enterprise as a whole, in which transport, distribution, services and agriculture are included with industrial production, output seems to have risen by rather more than 5 per cent. in real terms.
  Allowing for the increase in numbers employed, this suggests an increase of nearly 4 per cent. in output per man per year in business enterprises compared with the forecast of 21 per cent. in the Economic Survey of 1949. It was not thought that we could rely upon quite such a high increase as 4 per cent. for next year, for reasons I will mention in a moment, and the figure of 21 per cent. has therefore been repeated for 1950. In the light of the tentative figures for the first two months of this year I am inclined to think that the assumption of 21 per cent. may again prove to be on the low side. Anyway, it is very much to be hoped that it will prove to be on the low side.
  The increase in production is. I think, evidence that the heavy capital investment since the war, as well as the efforts of the more enlightened sections of management and labour, are beginning to have their effect. I should like here particularly to commend the very good work of the Anglo-American productivity teams, a number of whose most remarkable and
  50
  helpful reports have already been published. I am quite certain—and in this I hope all the Committee will agree with me—that the results in production which we have achieved over the last few years prove the accuracy of the thesis that good relations and full consultation between the two sides of industry at all levels are far more effective levers to increased productivity than the so-called "disciplinary forces" of bankruptcy and unemployment.
  In some cases where shortages have been overcome and mass production on most modern lines has been possible very striking increases in production have resulted. The total output of all vehicles, for instance, went up by nearly 24 per cent. last year. That industry has made a quite spectacular contribution to our exports, and everyone concerned is to be greatly congratulated. We cannot, however, hope to repeat such very large increases in production in individual industries, and this may tend to bring down the overall average. That is the reason why it is doubted whether last year's 4 per cent. increase in productivity can be sustained.
  On the other hand, there are signs of a real movement forward in some industries which have so far been somewhat behind-hand. We still have a serious bottleneck in electric power generation, and unfortunately we are not yet through with those difficulties. Agriculture, which is such a vitally important factor in our home production and in our balance of payments, and which has benefited so much since this Government came into power, was somewhat affected by the drought last summer—even more, I think, than by the previous Tory administration—but nevertheless, good progress was made with the restocking of our farms. I am sure we are all grateful to the farmers and farm workers who have given their energies to this vital agricultural expansion programme for what they have already achieved on the basis of the fair price policy that we are operating.
  Expenditure on gross capital formation was again at a very high level in 1949, and in fact totalled some £2,465 million. Excluding the self-financing expenditure necessary to carry a given volume of stocks when prices rise, which is shown separately in the Economic Survey, real investment was substantially greater, both in fixed capital assets and in additions to

  51
  stocks and work in progress, than it had been in 1948.
  For 1950, the total investment for the year will be about the same as in 1949. Had the high level reached at the end of 1949 been carried forward into 1950 without the cuts announced last autumn, the total for the year would have been considerably greater. A major part of this investment will continue to be for industrial expansion of one kind or another; in 1950 about two-thirds of the new investment in the principal sectors will be for productive purposes, and only about one-third will be devoted to the social services.
  The Committee will remember that one of the adjustments which we made after devaluation was to reduce the housing programme. We are now in the course of considering the investment programme for 1951 including housing amongst other items. The Committee will appreciate that hitherto there have been two reasons for varying the annual capital expenditure on housing: first, the fluctuating supply of materials, including particularly imported timber; and second, the total availability of building resources for our capital investment as a whole, including I may say a very large amount of factory building, especially in the development areas. This latter programme is now tailing off somewhat, and we hope that the materials position is also becoming less critically difficult.

  HOUSING PROGRAMME
  We therefore propose to fix a total for the housing programme upon a more stabilised basis to which the rest of the capital investment programme will have to conform. For the three years 1950–52 therefore we have decided that the programme for Great Britain should be at the completion rate of 200,000 houses a year. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Not enough."] The continuing urgent need for houses, which is a symptom of the better standards of living that the people are now enjoying, makes it desirable, we believe, that housing should be given this special preferential place in our capital investment programme. We are therefore reverting to the rate of completions originally envisaged in last year's programme before the cuts were introduced last autumn. I believe this to be fully
  52
  justified in the light of the results of the past three months.

  EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
  During the past year we have kept to the narrow and difficult path between inflation with an unbalanced external position on the one hand and deflation with its consequent unemployment on the other. We have been able to avoid the pitfalls on either side of this narrow path. In this we have been assisted greatly by the external aid we have received from the United States and Canada, but, nevertheless, we could not have achieved the results which we have unless we had been prepared ourselves to carry out the not always very popular policies that we have pursued.
  In considering the position in which we find ourselves at the beginning of 1950. I would point out that there has been little change in the unemployment figures, except the usual seasonal variations. The course of retail prices has been comparatively steady, the increase in the index from 109 to 113 being mainly due to the limitation of subsidies at the time of the last Budget and to the increase of the price of bread upon devaluation. Neither of these can, of course, be regarded as any evidence of inflationary pressure.
  The wage rate index has remained remarkably steady, increasing only one point between January and December, whereas the index of earnings has just about kept pace with the cost of living index. Between 1948 and 1949, the amounts paid to wage and salary earners went up by over £300 million, which is a measure of their share of increased production. I should like to emphasise in this respect the great difference there is between increases in wage levels whereby more is paid for the same service, and increases in earnings arising from more being paid for more produced. This latter form of increase in personal incomes we have always encouraged because it is the by-product of greater productivity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! '2] Anyone who doubts that has only got to read the original White Paper to see that it is so.
  There has been a falling away in the number of unfilled vacancies which indicates a lower pressure of demand for labour. The figures of labour turnover show a very considerable mobility of

  53
  labour, although it is, of course, held down to some extent by the shortage of housing. This does not support those who say that much less full employment is necessary in order to enable industry to adapt itself to the changing requirements of the markets. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Who says so? "]
  Throughout the year, there was a continual improvement in the quantity and variety of goods available in the shops, and the figures of personal expenditure, which show substantial increases in the amount spent on food and clothing, accompanied by reductions in expenditure on alcoholic beverages, tobacco and entertainments, prove that the pattern of consumption is approaching more closely to that of the pre-war period.

  MONETARY SITUATION
  So far as our monetary situation and the National Debt are concerned, owing to the revaluation in terms of sterling of our dollar debts after devaluation, which involved an increase of £636 million, and to the revaluation of the sterling balances of the International Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which cost a further £173 million, our National Debt has been increased over the year by £809 million, but we have during the same period reduced the debt by £173 million, so that our net increase of debt is £636 million. This is, of course, very different from last year's result, when we paid off £453 million of short-term debt, but I then made it clear that we should not repeat that record as we were not budgeting for any substantial overall surplus.
  The note circulation of £1,267 million at the end of March remains virtually unaltered from the figure at the end of the previous March, while net Bank deposits, at £5,588 million last month, show a small movement downwards, which is in the right direction.
  The main declared policy of the Budget last year was to maintain the degree of disinflation we had then attained. Although in the middle of the year there was a slight tendency towards more inflation, which was liable to be accentuated by devaluation, yet with the adequate correctives which we then applied we can now I think say that we are in a less inflationary condition than at this time last year; so that if we want
  54
  to "ride comfortably" and maintain our primary objective of full employment, our job now is to guard against any kind of increase in inflationary pressure.

  OUTTURN FOR 1949–50
  Having now completed my review of our economic condition, I come to the Budget itself, and I will start by giving the Committee the outturn for 1949–50. The main figures I am about to quote will be found upon pages 4 and 5 of the Blue Paper.
  The Committee will notice that we have continued this year the alternative classification of receipts and payments which is designed to show the true revenue surplus. A good deal of technical work has been done with regard to this alternative classification, but it has not yet, I think, reached a stage when we can with any certainty select the best permanent form for our Budget accounts. It is for that reason that we have this year continued the two alternative forms.
  The surpluses actually realised last year were, above the line, £549 million, true revenue surplus £518 million and overall surplus £62 million. Those all mark, as the Committee can see, an improvement upon the estimated figures, of £470 million, £492 million and £14 million, respectively. But though the out-turn is better than we expected, this does not mean that the original expenditure estimated was not exceeded. In fact the total expenditure exceeded the total estimates by £67 million, but this was, fortunately, more than offset by increases in revenue.
  Total revenue exceeded the estimates by £146 million at £3,924 million. Customs and Excise Duties exceeded by £27 million in a total of £1,520 million. There was a shortfall in tobacco of £25 million, due to our cutting back the dollar purchases of tobacco last year, a very small excess of £6 million on alcoholic liquors and a surplus of £42 million on Purchase Tax. This latter reflects the increased sales of consumer goods to which I have already referred. The Betting Duties provided £2 million less than the estimate mainly due to the reduction in the average amount of stakes in the football pools. On the Inland Revenue side the receipts at £2,111 million show a small excess of £26 million.
  Income Tax receipts were £52 million below estimate, due to an over estimate of profits for 1948. The continual rise in profits which had taken place since 1939 was halted during 1948, but this fact did not become apparent until after the estimates had been made last year. In view of this, it is at first sight surprising to.find that the yield of Profits Tax and Excess Profits Tax actually showed the largest excess of all—£57 million over the estimate of £240 million. The explanation of this apparent contradiction is threefold: First, quicker progress in clearing arrears of Excess Profits Tax; second, accelerated collection of Profits Tax; and finally the fact that the investment income of companies generally has proved much greater than was expected.
  Surtax produced £10 million over the estimate, and Death Duties £14 million more. The yield of other taxes was reasonably near to the estimates. Non-tax revenue yielded £237 million, against the estimate of £145 million. This is, of course, a notoriously difficult field for estimating. The major increases of receipts over estimates were: £35 million from the sale of surplus stores, £30 million from trading services and £27 million miscellaneous revenue. Perhaps the most significant single individual item was a payment out of the surplus arising from the wool disposals scheme.
  Coming now to the expenditure side, the outturn exceeded the Budget estimates, as I have said, by £67 million. The Consolidated Fund services were £11 million more than the estimate, but the major increase was on supply expenditure which, at £2,837 million, was £56 million more than the estimate. The House had an opportunity of examining and discussing the various Supplementary Estimates which contributed to this excess a few weeks ago, and I then stated that I could not give the figure of saving to set against the £170 million supplementaries until after the end of the year. That figure of saving was £114 million—so the net increase was £56 million.
  There is one item below the line on the expenditure side to which I must refer, as it shows so marked a discrepancy from the estimate. This is loans to local authorities. The estimate of £220 million was exceeded by £52 million. We decided, as the Committee knows, to continue the favourable rate of interest on these loans,
  56
  at 3 per cent., to assist local authorities particularly to keep down their rents of new houses. This favourable rate of interest seems to have led some local authorities to draw more freely on the Local Loans Fund than was warranted by their actual needs, thus taking undue advantage of the special facility which we were providing for them. This could not, of course, be allowed to continue, so that steps were taken to ensure that local authority drawings on the Fund would match more closely their real needs.
  It must be recognised that some of the internal reserves upon which the local authorities have hitherto been able to draw are now exhausted, so that we must expect their demand for loans to be somewhat higher than it has been. We believe, however, that with the continued co-operation of the local authorities the sum we intend to provide for the coming year of £279 million should suffice to meet all their needs.

  PROSPECTS ON BASIS OF EXISTING TAXATION
  I next come to examine the prospects for 1950–51 on the basis of the existing taxation. Consolidated Fund Services will take £537 million, of which £490 million is for service of the debt. We shall continue during this year the policy of using any Budget or other surplus funds to pay off short-term debt.
  The total supply expenditure for the year, as provided by the Estimates submitted to Parliament, amounts to £2,918 million, an increase of £137 million over the original Estimates for 1949–50, and of £81 million over the actual outturn of last year. The result is, therefore, a total estimate of expenditure above the line of £3,455 million.
  Revenue on the existing basis of taxation is estimated for Customs and Excise at £1,510 million. The more important items in this total are as follows: beer and alcoholic drinks, £387 million; tobacco, £590 million; Purchase Tax, £295 million; Entertainments Duty, £46 million; oil, £68 million; betting, £25 million; Import Duties Act, £48 million and other duties, £51 million. There is no very marked variation in these from the actual receipts of last year. The total, as I have said, is £10 million less. Inland Revenue receipts are expected again to be much about the same as last year's

  57
  outturn, a total of £2,100 million against an outturn of £2,111 million.
  As I stated earlier, the progressive increase in profits which had gone on for nine years came to an end in 1948, and we cannot therefore look to any increase in revenue from that source. It must also he noted, and this like all benefits is soon forgotten, that this year we have to meet the first instalment of the increase in the initial allowance for new machinery which was granted in last year's Budget, and which will this year amount to a sum of £40 million. On the other hand, individual incomes are likely to increase with increased productivity and production, so that taking all the factors into account we hope to raise £1,460 million by Income Tax, which marks a small increase over last year's outturn of £1,438 million.
  Surtax should yield £120 million and Death Duties, which have not yet been fully affected by last year's increases, should yield £195 million. Profits Tax and Excess Profits Tax are expected to yield £270 million, a fall of £27 million compared to last year's outturn, which is mainly attributable to a further decline in Excess Profits Tax which came to an end three years ago. Stamps should give £50 million, and arrears of special contribution and miscellaneous duties £5 million.
  It is pretty clear, I think, that we can no longer look for those large annual increases in Inland Revenue duties which have helped us so much with our finances over the last few years. Any further yield from these taxes can only come from increases in the total of national production. We must not overlook the fact, in this connection, that the effective rate of taxation upon money distributed as salaries and wages is much less than that upon profits. The shift which is now taking place away from the earning of large profits towards the payment of more money in the form of salaries and wages must therefore tend to curtail the amount of Revenue we can raise by the Inland Revenue taxes. This is a material factor in assessing our future capacity to raise the money required to meet a rising expenditure.
  As regards other Revenue, I put Motor Duties at £56 million the same as received last year; surplus Stores, which are naturally decreasing rapidly in volume,
  58
  at £35 million compared to £79 million received last year; trading services at £85 million compared with £48 million last year. The reason for this is that we can look for further substantial receipts especially from the disposal of war-time purchases of wool, and on stocks of raw materials held by various controls on the cessation of Government trading. Miscellaneous receipts I put at £70 million compared to £78 million last year, which, together with £40 million for other smaller items, gives £286 million for other Revenue, and a grand total of estimated Revenue on the existing basis of taxation of £3,896 million.
  As regards below-the-line items, receipts are put at £70 million as compared to £66 million last year, and payments at £520 million as against £553 million. The two largest items are £279 million for loans to local authorities, which I have already mentioned, and £100 million for war damage, which it will be noted still makes large demands on our resources.
  The result is, therefore, to show, on the existing basis of taxation, an estimated above-the-line surplus of £441 million compared to last year's estimate of £470 million and an outturn of £549 million; a true revenue surplus of £411 million; compared to £492 million estimated, £518 million realised last year, and an overall deficit of £9 million compared to an overall surplus of £14 million estimated, and £62 million realised in 1949–50.

  GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE
  Many members of the Committee will remember that last year I dealt in some detail with the expenditure side of the Budget, and this year I must again emphasise the need for the most careful scrutiny of any and every suggestion of new expenditure. There is, as I have pointed out, an increase in the estimated expenditure of £147 million over the estimates of last year. This increase makes no allowance for any Supplementaries, such as that for increased National Assistance grants already foreshadowed, but also, of course, takes no credit for economies or under-expenditure.
  In considering these figures we must remember that but for special economies of some £90 million introduced after devaluation, the estimates would have been that much higher, and also that the

  59
  net increase of £147 million is arrived at after taking into account an anticipated decrease of £50 million in terminal services arising out of the war. In the nature of things we cannot rely much longer upon any such decreases to help us. This increase results mainly from the items covered by the recent Supplementary Estimates. The services concerned are being carried forward into the coming year.
  The largest individual increase shown in the Estimates is for the National Health Services, £123 million for England and Wales and £10 million for Scotland. I will revert to those Estimates in a moment. The next largest is Defence at £21 million. There is not much hope of any immediate reduction here in view of the condition of the world and the obligations of North Atlantic Defence which we are undertaking. Colonial development and welfare accounts for another £17 million and there is an increase of £17 million in grants and loans arising out of the post-war conditions in Burma and Malaya. We cannot avoid such items if we are to discharge our responsibilities in the stabilisation and development of the colonies and of South East Asia. These increases add up to £188 million which is more than the net increase. The other pluses and minuses are not of major importance, and, bearing in mind the reduction in terminal expenses that I have already mentioned, they nearly balance out.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  So by far the largest item is the increased cost of the National Health Service. As to that the Committee will recollect that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health stated in the course of the Debate on the Supplementary Estimate for the Health Services, that we must now regard the period of their initiation as passed so that there is no excuse for exceeding the estimates in the coming 12 months. My right hon. Friend also stated that further measures of control must be exercised to help to make certain that the annual estimate for the Service as a whole is not exceeded.
  It is clear that it is not possible in existing circumstances to permit any overall increase in the expenditure on the Health Services. Any expansion in one part of the Service must in future be met
  60
  by economies or, if necessary, by contraction in others. In exercising this essential control over total expenditure, regard will of course be had to priorities. My right hon. Friends have I believe the necessary powers, but should these prove to be insufficient, an Amending Act will be introduced. It is not proposed to impose any charge immediately in connection with prescriptions, since it is hoped that a more easily administered method of economising in this branch of expenditure can be introduced shortly. The power to charge will, of course, remain so that it can be used later if it is needed.

  FOOD SUBSIDIES
  There is one other item of expenditure upon which I must say a word and that is the food subsidies. As the Committee know, the Ministry of Food Estimate is simply for the net cash which the Ministry require for their administration and their trading operations, and its amount will vary from year to year with any change in stocks, up or down, over the year and with the amount fixed for the food subsidies.
  Last year the maximum for the food subsidies was fixed at £465 million and I stated that
  " whatever happens to prices, we must not allow the subsidies to rise above that level"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1949: Vol. 463, c. 2086.]
  This year, I propose to continue that same ceiling, as modified by the economies introduced in the autumn. As the Committee will remember, these were the elimination of the Exchequer subsidy on animal feeding stuffs, the increases in the prices of dried and frozen eggs and raisins, the removal of the fish subsidy and certain administrative savings, which decreased the subsidies without having any adverse effect on prices to the consumer.
  Taking into account all these items which had previously been included in the £465 million, we arrive at a ceiling for 1950–51 of £410 million, and on that figure the Ministry of Food estimate has been based. The £465 million has not been reduced at all except by the deductions I have just stated, which were all included in last autumn's measures of economy. In the light of the prospects of prices and quantities over the year some small price increases were necessary to

  61
  keep within that ceiling and these have already been announced by the Minister of Food.
  We hope that no further increases in prices in the basic foodstuffs will be necessary, anyway for some time to come, but we shall have to watch the situation and to see that the subsidies do not exceed £410 million. If, as we hope they may, the prices at which we buy our supplies should be less than we have assumed, I should propose to pass the benefit on to the consumer so far as necessary to cancel out any rise in the cost-of-living index whether from the increased prices recently announced, or from any other source. Thus, the figure of £410 million can be regarded as a floor as well as a ceiling, in this sense. that subsidies will not be reduced below the floor in such a way as to raise prices.
  As I pointed out last year, many of our social services are expanding automatically so that the cost increases every year, as for instance with national insurance and education. We have to bear this fact in mind when we look forward to the prospects for the future, and we must also bear in mind what I have already said about the likely falling off in the yield of certain important taxes. It will, I hope, be perfectly clear both to this Committee and to the country that the very greatest care and restraint must be exercised as to any new charges which it is suggested might be imposed upon the Exchequer. We have in the last four years taken on by way of social services and benefits all that we can possibly afford until such time as there is a large increase in our national production, and even then I have no doubt that the individual will want to retain a very considerable portion of that increase for his own spending.

  BASIS OF BUDGET POLICY
  I now come, in the light of that factual review, to deal with the economic considerations which must influence the form of this year's Budget. I will deal first in general terms with the reasons which have called for a Budget surplus over the past few years. We have during that period been pursuing a budgetary policy which has brought us through most difficult times with a large measure of success, and I can see no present justification whatever for its abandonment; but the
  62
  persistent fallacies which are given vent to every year show clearly that there is still a wide measure of misunderstanding of the function of a Budget surplus.
  Some re-statement of our general economic policy as affecting the Budget is therefore necessary, especially this year when we have recently passed through a General Election in which some people indulged in a veritable orgy of irresponsible suggestions and half-promises of increased social benefits and decreased taxation, a formula guaranteed to bring almost immediate ruin to our country. Though the technicalities of budgetary and employment policy may seem difficult and complex, the broad essentials at which we must aim are simple and clear for all to see, if they are willing to face the facts of the situation.
  It is our unquestionable duty to avoid the twin evils of inflation and deflation. This we can only do by maintaining a balance between the amount of goods and services which the nation seeks to buy and the amount which can be produced when the labour force is, as at present, fully employed. Excessive demand produces inflation and inadequate demand results in deflation. The fiscal policy of the Government is the most important single instrument for maintaining that balance. On the one hand, Government spending swells the total of national expenditure, both directly through current purchases of goods and services and indirectly through social security payments and the like, by adding to the incomes and spending power of private individuals. On the other hand, taxation, by drawing off part of the incomes of persons and business firms, reduces their spending power, and therefore the total of private expenditure.
  The difference between Government revenue and expenditure, that is to say whether the Budget is in surplus or deficit, gives an indication of the direction in which fiscal policy is influencing the level of total demand. The problem may alternatively be looked at from a more technical standpoint, that of investment and savings. If total demand is not to be excessive then not only must Government expenditure be covered by revenue but also the nation must be willing to hold back from spending on consumption an amount equal to that which it proposes to spend on investment.
  In other words, for the nation as a whole, spending on capital account must be balanced by savings on income account. If the voluntary savings of individuals and firms are insufficient, then the Government must itself make up the deficiency in the nation's savings by accumulating a Budget surplus, which in effect helps to pay for capital development, such, for instance, as that provided by loans to local authorities.
  Clearly, since saving is the opposite of spending, to say that a Budget surplus is necessary to remedy a deficiency in saving is simply to re-state the earlier proposition that a surplus is necessary to curb excessive spending. We must all be agreed that the present danger continues to be one of excessive spending or deficient saving—[An HON. MEMBER: "By the Government."]—that is, of inflation. In these circumstances the maintenance of a Budget surplus is absolutely vital. Should anyone be tempted to argue against the need for us to have such a surplus, I would ask him to consider whether, if we remitted taxation so as to do away with the above-the-line surplus, we should get an equivalent rise in personal savings to make good the loss. Quite obviously that is not what would happen. The great bulk of the remissions would be spent on current consumption.

  USE OF BUDGET SURPLUS
  There is one fallacy which seems to crop up almost every year when there is a Budget surplus. There is a belief amongst some people that a Budget surplus is like the declared profits of a company, and represents a fund available for distribution by way of remission of taxation. It is of course nothing of the kind. Any moneys that are not required during the year to discharge current liabilities on revenue account are used to meet capital liabilities or to pay off debt, and the allocation of these so-called surpluses to such purposes is an essential part of the financial policy laid down in the Budget.
  Under the budgetary system which we follow we settle upon the remissions of taxation that we can afford at the beginning of the year, in the light of the needs not of the past but of the coming financial year. I hope, therefore, that no one will cast their covetous eyes upon last year's surplus, which has, in fact, been finally
  64
  spent and fully disposed of. We must look to the future and see what we can afford to do, in the light of the expenditure for which we must make provision in the coming 12 months.
  I must repeat what I have often said before, that it is not our financial policy to run a perpetual budgetary surplus. We have said that such a surplus is essential in the present circumstances where there is a constant and imminent danger of inflation. But if and when those circumstances change we may well find ourselves in quite different conditions in which our fear is not of inflation but of deflation. Then in order to pursue our same policy we shall have to reduce the budgetary surplus or eliminate it altogether, or we may even want to budget for a deficit. When that time comes, some considerable remissions in taxation might be possible and, indeed, advisable. But we have certainly not yet reached that state of affairs.
  Many of the critics of our present financial and economic situation, who would like to embark upon a tax remission spree, base their arguments upon an assumption that our present conditions are so hard that we cannot possibly continue without some large measure of relaxation. Our very favourable industrial results over the past year show conclusively that we are not, in fact, being crushed down by the weight of taxation. When production, productivity, exports, profits and all the rest of the indices of industrial activity are at the highest levels ever known in the country it is not good sense to argue that our industry is weighed down and rendered incapable of full performance.
  In fact, the sense of fair shares and full participation in the national effort has easily overcome any disadvantages that might flow from the sort of controls that are necessary to ensure those fair shares and to maintain full employment. So for the present both our past experience and our future prospects point to a continuance of the same budgetary policy that we have followed for the last three years.

  PERSONAL INCOMES
  Intimately bound up with this whole question of inflation is the policy of restraint in the matter of personal in-

  65
  comes, which was first put forward rather more than two years ago. It is very understandable that that policy should have become difficult to carry through, and the longer the time that passes the more difficult it must become to apply it fully. I must pay a very high tribute to the trade union leaders and their members who have appreciated completely the significance of this policy for continued full employment and have given it their fullest backing.
  The expression "a wage-freeze" has come into common use, but, of course, no law, regulation, or rule has ever been made which imposed a wage-freeze on industry. Wages and conditions of work have been left to free negotiation between employers and employees, but the Government have done what is their duty; they have put before the country the very powerful considerations that should weigh with anyone who seeks to better their own position at the expense of the country as a whole.
  The facts are, of course, that the total of wages and salaries—and that is the important figure; not nominal wage rates has gone up substantially. Earnings increased between 1947 and 1948 by £670 million and between 1948 and 1949 by another £340 million. That certainly cannot be regarded as a standstill, although there was some increase of numbers employed at the same time, and to it must be added the £300 million of increased social services and benefits that have been accruing over the last two years. As these increases in the main were balanced by increased production, their inflationary influence has been slight. But unless there is a comparable increase in production, wage increases cannot take place without serious financial consequences.
  Some 55 per cent. of all company profits are required for taxation; probably not less than half of what is left is used for new capital expenditure in one way or another; so that some three-quarters of the gross profits is already being utilised for essential economic purposes which otherwise we should have to finance in some other way: only a quarter goes to personal consumption, and even some of that may be subject to surtax, so there is not here any great fund from which increases in wages can be paid. There is, furthermore, no fund, as
  66
  some people seem to think, out of which we can increase our power of consumption beyond what our total production allows.
  The real difficulty is that there are still some cases of low earnings which are very difficult to correct without upsetting the relative wage levels that have been established within each industry for the different grades and classes of workpeople employed in it. This is an immensely difficult problem to solve. So indeed is the whole problem of distributing fairly among the different groups who contribute to the wealth and wellbeing of the community the extra resources made available by their increased efforts.
  There is one thing obvious, however, that if we try, by catch-as-catch-can methods, to advance anywhere and everywhere along the wage front, we shall undoubtedly succeed in destroying full employment in the way I have described earlier, through inflation. Then it will be a problem of wages falling down, and not even of their staying still where they are, and of large scale unemployment.
  We have not yet found the solution for this problem of how to get the increased earnings corresponding to the increased production into the right pockets so as to eliminate cases of personal incomes that are too low. I know that the T.U.C. are working hard at it, and we are anxious to do all we can to help employers and employees to arrive at a solution to their difficulties without endangering the gradually improving standards that we have struggled so hard to achieve. In the meanwhile it is vital to the continued success of our efforts that the policy of restraint should not be broken down either in the matter of wages, salaries or profits, until a better policy has been worked out to take its place.

  SIZE OF SURPLUS REQUIRED
  Let me now turn to the precise amount of the surplus for which we should budget this year. We must have regard to our past experiences in this field and also to the present condition of our economy. As a result of our policies and efforts in 1948 and 1949, as I have said, our internal situation is on the whole less inflationary than at any time since the war. But having reached that condition does not mean that the problem of a proper balance between national output and ex-

  67
  penditure has been permanently solved. We must continue to take the necessary measures to maintain that balance which is in constant danger of being upset and so of destroying our policy of full employment. This means quite simply that we must ensure that the extra demands which will be made on our national production this year will not exceed the increase in production which we expect.
  As I stated earlier, we are planning for the deficit we ran on international account in 1949 to change to a small but essential surplus. This favourable change in our foreign balance creates a fresh difficulty in maintaining our internal balance, since some £120 million of the extra production in 1950 will be required to replace the supplies we have received as gifts or loans in 1949, measured by that net deficit of £70 million, and to provide for the net gifts or loans or repayment of debt that we in our turn shall make, which will be measured by our net surplus of £50 million. This £120 million must be a first charge on our extra production in 1950.
  Earnings we expect to increase with the growth of production and productivity, just as they did last year. On the basis of the present rates of direct taxation we must reckon, therefore, on an increase in personal expenditure on consumption of at least £200 million. Current expenditure on goods and services by all public authorities will go up by some £180 million. This makes a total for all these three items of at least £500 million, to meet which an equivalent amount of extra production will be required. This is on the basis of our not increasing our capital expenditure substantially above its present level.
  To meet these extra demands the Economic Survey estimates that our extra production in 1950 will amount to about £500 million at market prices. We have, therefore, a balance between increased output and the increased demands upon it, but with no margin whatever to spare for creating still further increases in personal consumption by tax remissions.
  As explained just now, the prospect can be looked at in another way, from the standpoint of capital expenditure and savings. Capital expenditure is likely to be roughly the same in 1950 as in 1949. But the change from a deficit to a surplus
  68
  on international account means that our domestic savings will have to be increased by £120 million to compensate for that change.
  If the voluntary limitation of dividend distribution continues, and it is of the first importance to the country that it should, we ought to see some further growth of company savings through profits put to reserve. There will also be an automatic increase in the sums set aside for depreciation, because the increase in initial allowances granted last year will become effective this year. Personal savings, in the form of small savings, have been somewhat disappointing. Withdrawals last year exceeded new small savings by nearly £68 million, but that is not altogether unnatural during a year- when more goods have been available for consumption, seeing that a great many people saved in the past so that they could spend the money when the goods came into the shops. New gross savings totalled £778 million apart from the increase in the savings put into insurance policies and building societies.
  I do not propose to count on any spectacular increase in small savings this year; but we cannot afford to have less savings than at present, and I look confidently to the great army of voluntary workers in the Savings Movement to continue their good work over the next 12 months, with all the energy and enthusiasm that they command.
  If, then, we are to continue to avoid inflation and so make it possible to continue full employment, we must secure an overall balance in our Budget, which means an above-the-line surplus large enough to meet all the below-the-line liabilities. The Committee will see, therefore, from the figures I have already given for 1950–51 that on the basis of last year's taxation there is no scope for remission.
  In the light of this over-riding factor I am afraid that all the attractive suggestions put forward for remissions of taxation—which, if they were added together, would reach perhaps £1,000 million sterling—must be put firmly on one side. And much though I appreciate the arguments for a more generous distribution of post-war credits, I am afraid that any of the extensions that have been suggested would be far too costly for us to afford.
  In fact the extra wealth we hope to create by improved and increased pro-

  69
  duction this year will be used up, in the ways I have shown by improvement in our foreign balance, by increased personal consumption through increased earnings, and by increased social services and benefits. These are the forms in which the increased national dividend is being distributed, and it is out of the question that in addition to these we should give a further dividend by way of any net remission of taxation.

  TAX CHANGES: MINOR PROPOSALS
  Now before I come to my final proposals and summing up, based upon the considerations I have just put before the Committee, there are a number of lesser, but sufficiently important, matters that I ought to mention, in some of which adjustment of taxation requires to be made for reasons other than revenue purposes.
  Two years ago I referred in my Budget speech to the growing avoidance of tax by means of arrangements known as restrictive covenants, amongst others. The form taken by these is that a high executive—it is almost always a high executive —undertakes not to set up in competition with the concern he serves or to serve its competitors. In return, the concern gives him a large sum of money or block of shares which, as the law stands, is not liable to tax. I gave a warning in 1948 that I should not hesitate to introduce retrospective legislation to tax such payments if it became necessary.
  Since then certain glaring instances of such payments have been widely advertised, and I am certain that the public, and particularly those employed in the businesses concerned, do not think it right that a particular individual should by such a device be able to evade paying his proper share of taxation. The payment of such sums is, too, entirely contrary to the spirit of the policy of the White Paper on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices, and can only help to break down the otherwise good record of voluntary restraint that has so far been shown in these matters.
  I propose, therefore, that these benefits shall be made chargeable to Surtax and that the charge shall be restrospective to the year 1949–50 so that payment will have to be made next January on such benefits.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Surtax only?
  Sir S. Cripps: Surtax only. In the case of the larger sums this means that over 95 per cent. of them will be payable as tax. The warning I gave in 1948 applied to other devices besides the one I am now proposing to deal with, and that warning still stands in its full force; I hope that my present proposal will make that clear.
  I have recently had under consideration the Income Tax treatment of superannuation and pension schemes for the benefit of employees on retirement. This is a highly technical subject and I believe that those who are familiar with it will all agree that in a number of respects the present law is unsatisfactory and anomalous. There is a clear need for inquiry into this problem; but there is an allied problem which should, I think, be examined at the same time: that is, the position of those who do not, or cannot, enjoy the same Income Tax advantages as those within such schemes.
  A number of professional bodies have, for instance, made representations to me as to the position of their members. And much the same questions arise as to the individual trader or self-employed persons in general and, indeed, the individual employee who does not belong to a superannuation fund. There is certainly a case for inquiry here, and it would be necessary to bring within such review the present relief for payment of life insurance premiums.
  I have, therefore, decided that this survey should be undertaken by a committee of standing similar to that now sitting under the chairmanship of Mr. Millard Tucker. The committee will be asked to review the more technical matters to which I have referred as well as to consider the wider question of the proper scope of Income Tax relief in relation to saving for old age or retirement or to provide for widows and other dependants after death. I am glad to say that Mr. Millard Tucker has accepted my request that he should act as chairman of this new committee as well.
  There are a number of other minor matters which will be dealt with in the Finance Bill on the Inland Revenue side. As already announced, legislation will be introduced dealing with the treatment for taxation purposes of recoveries of enemy debts. There will be provisions dealing with certain methods of avoiding Death Duties, and with some technical points

  71
  arising on the taxation of the income of married couples. The taxation treatment of certain wayleaves will be clarified and provision will be made for the superannuation contributions of Northern Ireland civil servants to be treated in the same way as in Great Britain. There will also be two matters which will be of assistance to industry: first, a measure of relief from tax for industrial research associations; and second, a provision extending for a further and final five years the period, expiring in 1950–51, for which, as a transitional measure, the Income Tax Act, 1945, permits the mills, factories, etc., allowances to be continued.

  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
  I now turn to Customs and Excise and will start off with beer. But let me hasten to assure the Committee that I have no intention of repeating the unpopular action of last year when a reduction of the price was made. Owing to the shortage of cereals since the early days of the war, there has been a necessary restriction on the strength of beer, but more recently supplies have improved and it is now possible to allocate for brewing an.extra quantity of barley sufficient to allow a moderate increase in the strength of beer.
  The brewers have given an assurance that the gravities of all beers will be increased by three degrees, and the Beer Duty which is related to the gravity of beer, is being adjusted to enable this to be done without any additional duty being incurred and also to enable the brewing industry to recover the cost of the extra barley used so as to obviate any rise in the price of beer. The aim is to give the public a better beer at the same price. The extra three degrees represents about a 10 per cent. increase in strength on the average. That is about half-way back to pre-war strength.
  This will entail a small cost to the Exchequer of about £2,750,000 in this year and 0,250,000 in a full year. The arrangements take effect for beer brewed as from to-morrow, so that beer of the new strength will not be on sale immediately, but it should be available within a few weeks. I hope that this arrangement will please the beer-drinkers without upsetting anyone else.
  From beer I pass to whisky. Here it is proposed to abolish some remaining
  72
  Excise allowances on certain categories of home-manufactured spirits. These allowances were for the most part repealed when the Revenue control of distilleries was modernised after the war, except in respect of stocks of spirits produced under the old system of control. It is now proposed to abolish these remaining allowances, which relate exclusively to exported whisky. The total amount, at 3d. a proof gallon, is comparatively small and its payment involves a disproportionate administrative cost. In the case of whisky exported to the United States where, I am glad to say, a lot of it goes, this allowance is offset by an additional import duty of equivalent amount, so that the exporter has to refund in dollars what he receives in sterling. The change will affect whisky exported or shipped as stores on and after 1st May, 1950.
  Then there is one feature of the Betting Tax which requires a little attention. During the past season some of the smaller football pools have adopted a form of betting known as "fixed odds plus" which enables them to avoid legal liability for the duty, although, in fact, the business is conducted in a way indistinguishable from ordinary pools. This has had no significant effect on the Revenue so far, but in fairness to the great majority of the pools who have refrained from such a practice, it is proposed to close this loophole. Pools conducted in such a way that the promoter retains discretion in the determination of winnings will, therefore, in future seasons be liable to the duty.
  A small point arises as to the relief of duty for goods defective on importation and destroyed. Under the provisions of Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1933, the duty paid on imported goods which are not up to contract may be refunded provided they are returned unused to the seller with his consent. To meet the wishes of the trade, it has been the practice to allow refund of duty provided the goods are destroyed unused with the consent of the seller. It is now proposed to put this practice on a statutory basis.
  Next, as to the Purchase Tax for war memorials. Under the provisions of Section 3 of the Finance (No 2) Act, 1945, certain articles are exempt from Purchase Tax if installed as a war memorial in a place of religious worship. This concession was limited to a period of five years

  73
  and is due to expire at the end of this year; but in accordance with the undertaking given by my predecessor when introducing the provision in 1945, I have looked into this matter again and I propose to extend the concession for a further five years.
  Provision will also be made to regularise and bring up-to-date the traditional privileges of the Navy as regards duty-free stores.
  I now come to a more substantial item which I must explain at rather greater length. As those who have studied the capital investment programmes will realise, we have over the last two years been seriously troubled by the excess investment in commercial vehicles in the home market. In 1949, for instance, the target set was for 50,000 new commercial vehicles, but, instead of that, about 100,000 were in fact produced for the home market.
  The over-investment in this particular item is illustrated by the fact that the forecast for 1949 was £35 million, whereas the actual expenditure turned out at £72,500,000, or £37,500,000 more than had been planned. Nor is it as if the number of vehicles on the roads were too few. Before the war there were some 500,000 commercial goods vehicles licensed in the United Kingdom. By the end of the war the number for fallen to 450,000, but at the end of 1949 it had risen to over 800,000.
  It has been found that, despite all the efforts to control the number of these vehicles going on the home market by administrative methods, the excessive volume of home sales has continued, and so it has been decided to adopt fiscal measures to help to restrict demand on the home market and assist the industry to achieve the desired diversion of its output to exports. To this end it is proposed to apply a Purchase Tax of 33·1 per cent. to these vehicles.
  Passenger vehicles and some special types of vehicles not normally used for the carriage of goods will be excluded. The White Paper which will be available afterwards includes a provisional list of such vehicles, which will be discussed with the motor trade before the tax comes into effect on 1st May next. It is estimated that this tax will yield £9 million this year and £13 million in a full year.
  There is another small proposal in this category, that is to reduce the rate for higher priced private cars from 663 to 33+ per cent. This is not done to increase their sales markedly in the home market, but in order to keep alive one of our high-quality engineering industries which has a valuable contribution to make to exports, especially to the dollar area.
  Business has in fact fallen below the point necessary to enable these cars to be manufactured at a price attractive to the export markets and it is desired to re-establish a home market sufficient for this purpose. The cost of this concession will be about £1 million this year and £1,500,000 in a full year. I have received an assurance from the manufacturers that there will be no question of their trying to get an undue expansion of their sales in the home market as a result of this reduction in the tax.
  I should here mention a matter which caused a little trouble last year and that is the form of the general Resolution so far as it deals with Purchase Tax. A special form has been adopted so as to enable the Committee to have general discussions upon the different rates a Purchase Tax without embarking upon what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley) referred to as a "Dutch auction" on particular items, which, in present political circumstances, would be likely to have particularly unfortunate results.

  TAX CHANGES: MAJOR PROPOSALS
  I now come to a major matter which has a bearing upon our dollar balances as well as upon our domestic revenues. We are one of the few countries that have not yet tried to persuade users to economise in petrol—a commodity still very expensive in dollars—by means of price increases. In almost every other country which relies so largely upon imports of petrol, the retail price is a good deal higher than it is here. Thus in France, for example, petrol is about 4s. 4d. a gallon, in Belgium 3s. 3d. and in Italy 6s., compared with the present price in this country of 2s. 3d. a gallon. Our taxation of light hydrocarbon oils—to give the full title—has not been increased since before the war.
  The time has come when some of the other automatic methods of restricting the consumption of petrol, such for instance,

  75
  as the shortage of vehicles, are disappearing, so that fiscal inducements to economy have become necessary. Indeed it is difficult to think out a better case for fresh taxation. We here have a commodity costing us a great many dollars; where demand at present prices exceeds supply; where the rate of tax has not been increased since before the war; where rationing in a large part of the field—that covered by commercial vehicles—cannot effectively restrict consumption and where some of the factors which have hitherto tended to restrict consumption are now disappearing. Furthermore, an increase in the tax on petrol, which is at present only 9d. a gallon, will, we hope, lead to savings in consumption by commercial vehicles, so that it will be possible without any great increase in imports, to do a little better for the ordinary car user.

  INCREASE IN PETROL TAX
  We propose, therefore, to add 9d. a gallon to the Customs Duty on petrol and other light oils and on heavy oils used as road fuel. This increase will apply from 6 o'clock today. [Laughter.] I am afraid there is hardly time for hon. Members to get to a pump. As a result of this the price of petrol will be increased to 3s. a gallon and, as I have said, this should lead to some resultant economies in consumption.
  We propose, therefore, to continue throughout the next 12 months the extra ration of 90 miles a month already promised to ordinary car users for the three summer months. This will mean that as from 1st June, the beginning of the next standard rationing period, the standard ration will be increased from the rate of 90 miles to 180 miles a month. The increased ration for the six months June—November will be made available to motorists from 8th May. So far as passenger transport is concerned, the overall cost will go up as a result of this increase of the tax by 4 per cent. in the country and by 5 per cent. in London. This small increase in costs should not lead to many additional applications for increases in fares.
  There is one class of user of hydrocarbon oils where the circumstances are such that I feel justified in proposing a measure which will go far to offset the effect of the increase of duty. Certain
  76
  agricultural operations are performed in some cases by vehicles or machines using fuel which is taxed and in other cases by vehicles or machines using an untaxed fuel. The additional duty now to be paid in respect of the former would involve a considerable extra cost to the farmer and an undue discrimination between the two types unless suitable measures were taken to offset the extra cost of running such vehicles or machines.
  I propose therefore that an annual grant should be paid in respect of each such vehicle or machine based on a reasonable assumption as to the average amount of taxed fuel which each type consumes. Legislation will be necessary to authorise these grants, but it cannot be included in the Finance Bill. Before the necessary Resolution is tabled, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will consult the representatives of the farmers and manufacturers on the details. I provisionally put the cost of this concession at between £21 million and £3 million a year. The expenditure on these new grants will of course form the subject of a Supplementary Estimate in due course.
  The producers of indigenous oils which are at present free of duty, thereby receive a preference of 9d. a gallon. After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, I propose to continue this margin unchanged. From tomorrow therefore these indigenous oils, together with petrol substitutes, will be subject to an Excise duty of 9d. a gallon, that is to say 9d. a gallon less than the new rate of. Customs duty. The existing duty on power alcohol will be raised by the same amount.
  The provision in the Finance Act, 1938, under which the present margin has, in part at least, been guaranteed for the past 12 years, expires next July. I do not think that it would be right to ask the House to undertake, by legislation, that this margin should remain unchanged for a further period of years. But there would, of course, be no question of modifying it, without very careful consideration of the circumstances prevailing at the time and then only after giving the interests concerned an opportunity to put forward their case. The extra yield of the increased petrol tax is estimated at f68i million for this year and £73 million for a full year.
  Let me now summarise these various changes that I have proposed so that we can see where we are so far as our necessary surplus is concerned. We start, of course, with the out-turn that we should expect to get if taxation were continued as at present. Those figures which I gave earlier were: above the line surplus £441 million, overall deficit £9 million. Since then we have added receipts for petrol tax £68i million, and for Purchase Tax on commercial vehicles £9 million, that is a total of £77·1 million. We have deducted for strengthening beer £2 million, for Purchase Tax on higher-priced cars £1 million, making a net increase of £74 million, which would yield a surplus above the line of £515 million and overall a surplus of £65 million.
  In the circumstances which I have already explained to the Committee I believe that that is a rather larger surplus than we need budget for this year, and so I have looked round to see what modest adjustment in taxation could best be used to take up the slack. Whatever remissions we can manage must, and I hope we shall all agree on this, give proportionately more relief to those at the lower end of the income scale.

  INCOME TAX (REDUCTION OF LOWER RATES)
  After giving the whole matter the best consideration Oat I can and examining all the different possible alternatives, of which, of course, there are many, I have come to the conclusion that with reasonable optimism we could just manage to reduce the lower rates of Income Tax now at 3s. and 6s. to 2s. 6d. and 5s. This will give the largest possible proportionate relief to people who pay only at these rates, that is people from the minimum up to about £600 a year. This reduction will also be concentrated upon the block of income which includes practically all overtime, and so will still further reduce the tax on overtime.
  The Committee will remember that in 1948 we extended the band of income chargeable at 6s. in the £ to £200, so that, taking the one-fifth earned income relief into account this means that at present many workers pay tax at a maximum rate of 4s. 10d. in the £ on overtime and extra earnings while in other cases the rate is 2s. 5d. or even nothing at all. The proposals I have now made will reduce these
  78
  rates to 4s. and 2s. in the £ respectively over the same range.
  I will now give the Committee one or two instances of how this change in rate in the tax works out. I remind the Committee that the present starting point for the payment of tax for earned incomes is £145 for the single man; £233 for the married man with no children and whose wife does not get a separate allowance of her own; £308 for the married man with one child; and £383 for the married man with two children. Thereafter the next £50 of taxable income, that is, after deducting earned income relief, is charged at 3s.—in future it will be 2s. 6d.—and the next £200 at 6s.—in future it will be 5s. The single man earning £6 a week will get a reduction of 2s. in his tax weekly from 12s. 4d. to 10s. 4d. If he earns £8 a week the tax comes down from 22s. to 18s. 4d. a reduction of 3s. 8d. a week. The married man with two children pays no Income Tax below £7 7s. a week income. At £10 a week his tax will come down from 9s. 8d. to 8s. and so on.
  This will cost us £72 million this year and £82 million in a full year. The change will necessitate new P.A.Y.E. tables, which will be in the hands of employers for use on the first pay day after 8th June. As a result of these changes a minor adjustment will be necessary in the marginal provisions relating to the exemption limit.
  Though these reductions give no direct relief to industry as such, I would remind the Committee that in my last Budget I doubled the initial allowances upon machinery and plant, which will cost the Exchequer £40 million this year and £75 million next year. This means that that amount less of tax will be collected from industry this year and next year, so they cannot expect to have any further remission this year.
  The Committee will therefore see that what we propose—apart from a few minor adjustments—is the increase of an indirect tax which is very broadly spread in order to give proportionately more relief in direct taxation to the lower income groups, although all Income Tax payers will get some benefit. This is a move in the right direction, always bearing in mind that the growing volume of our social service expenditure, the size of our investment programme, and the need for keeping down inflation makes it

  79
  absolutely impossible for us to envisage any appreciable overall deficit on the Budget.
  The nett result of the whole of the changes should be to give us an above the line surplus of £443 million, on the alternative classification a surplus of £413 million, and overall a deficit of £7 million. We can, I think, regard that in a Budget of nearly £4,000 million as substantially an overall balance.

  GENERAL CONCLUSION
  I hope that the considerations that I have put before the Committee will convince them that we cannot, out of our present volume of production, have both full employment and a general standard of personal incomes much above those which we now enjoy. We could, perhaps, have higher personal incomes, often referred to optimistically as "inducement incomes," for some people if we were prepared to see others living in unemployment at a very low standard. Our general standards are well above those that we experienced before the war, because we have been able to keep all our people employed and so have the benefit of their production. That is a result of full employment.
  Do not let us risk losing the advantages we have built up with such difficulty over these post-war years, just because we are unwilling to acknowledge the need to continue for a while longer stern measures to guard our achievement of full employment. If we were now to relax our restraint and to seek to distribute our hardly earned and essential surplus by way of tax remissions we should be like those bees, which seeing the honey stored in their hive for the winter, gave up their work and indulged themselves upon their apparent but much needed surplus, with fatal results in the ensuing cold weather. We have, by our increased production, earned and obtained not only a higher level of real earnings, but also greatly extended social services and benefits. It is indeed conspicuously in that form that we have, so far, received the major dividend of our successful labours.
  So long as we can maintain full employment by whatever measures are from time to time necessary, including the attainment this year of a large Budget surplus above the line we shall at least
  80
  know that our National production is at its highest possible, and that we are all sharing in such standards of living as we are able to afford by reason of that National production. We shall also have the satisfaction of knowing that we have succeeded, by our planning, in practically eliminating that most undeserved suffering of our people, long-term unemployment which we tolerated so often and for such long periods in the years before the war.
  Such changes as we can make this year through the Budget without endangering our fundamental objectives will be in the right direction, and these together with the increase in expenditure on social service and social benefits, and in earnings by way of wages and salaries which accompany increased production, will mark another small but well defined step forward in the direction of more equal and higher general standards of living and towards that greater happiness and contentment of our people that is our aim.
  The Chairman: It is now my duty to put the necessary Resolutions to the Committee. I assume that all hon. Members have received a copy of them—[flox. MEMBERS: "No."] Arrangements have been made to that end. I shall wait a moment or two while they are distributed and then forthwith put the necessary Resolutions. With the consent of the Committee I will put them in the shortened form which we have adopted recently.

  CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND PURCHASE TAX
  1. Hydrocarbon oils
  (rate of customs duty and rebate)
  Resolved:
  "That as from six o'clock in the evening of the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty, there shall be an increase of ninepence a gallon—

  (a) in the rate of the duty of customs on hydrocarbon oils; and

  (b) in each of the rates of the rebate allowed on the delivery for home consumption of hydrocarbon oils other than light oils;

  and for the purposes of section two of the Finance Act, 1935 (heavy oils used as road fuel), no rebate shall be treated as having been repaid unless either it has been repaid before that hour or it has been repaid at the rate for the time being in force for the oils in question.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  2. Hydrocarbon oils (excise)
  Resolved:
  "That—

  (a) a duty of excise shall be charged on all hydrocarbon oils produced in the United Kingdom, if so produced on or after the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty, or if stored on or after that date in a refinery or on other premises in the United Kingdom used for the production of hydrocarbon oils or on premises containing any bonded storage for hydrocarbon oils;

  (b) the rate of the duty shall be the rate at which the duty of customs on hydrocarbon oils is for the time being chargeable, less ninepence a gallon or such other amount per gallon as may from time to time be directed by order of the Treasury;

  (c) in the case of oils which are not light oils and are not intended for use as road fuel, there shall be allowed from the duty a rebate at the rate for the time being in force for the duty;

  (d) the duty and any rebate therefrom shall be charged or allowed in the case of any oils when they are first (on or after the said nineteenth day of April) either—

  (i) delivered for home consumption from a refinery or from other premises used for the production of hydrocarbon oils or from premises containing any bonded storage for hydrocarbon oils; or

  (ii) removed to a refinery which it appears to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise is not primarily used for the production of hydrocarbon oils and which is for the time being specified in a direction given by those Commissioners for this purpose; or

  (iii) used in a refinery in such circumstances that an allowance is payable in respect thereof under subsection (4) of section eight of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1945;

  and shall be charged or allowed according to the quantity so delivered or removed or the quantity treated for the purposes of the said section eight as so used, as the case may be;

  (e) in this Resolution the expressions "hydrocarbon oils," "light oils" and "refinery" have the same meanings as for the purposes of the customs duty on hydrocarbon oils, but this Resolution does not apply to oils on which that duty is chargeable or to any such oils as are exempted from that duty by subsection (5) of section six of the Finance Act, 1933 (solid or semi-solid substances);

  82

  (f) in this Resolution the expression "road fuel" means fuel for any engine with which a road vehicle is equipped, whether for the propulsion of the vehicle or not, and for the purposes of this definition the expression "road vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle constructed or adapted for use on roads, being a vehicle within the meaning of section two of the Finance Act, 1935, as amended by any subsequent enactment;

  (g) references in this Resolution to the production of hydrocarbon oils include references to the obtaining of one description of hydrocarbon oils from another description thereof and to the subjecting of hydrocarbon oils to any process of purification or blending, as well as references to the obtaining of hydrocarbon oils from other substances or from any natural source."

  3. Petrol substitutes (excise)
  Resolved:
  "That as from the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty, there shall be charged a duty of excise on any petrol substitute which is sent out from the premises of a person producing or dealing in petrol substitutes and was not acquired by him with the duty paid, and the rate of the duty shall be the same as that at which any duty of excise on hydrocarbon oils is for the time being chargeable.
  In this Resolution the expression ' petrol substitute' means any liquid intended to take the place of petrol as fuel for internal combustion engines, being neither a hydrocarbon oil (within the meaning of that term for the purpose of customs duty) nor power methylated spirits."
  4. Power methylated spirits (rate of excise duty)
  Resolved:
  "That as from the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty, there shall be an increase of ninepence a gallon in the rate of the duty of excise on spirits used for making power methylated spirits.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  5. Beer (customs and excise)
  Resolved:
  " That as from the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty, the rates specified in the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1949, for the duties on beer and the drawbacks thereof shall be altered by substituting for all purposes a specific gravity of 1,030 degrees for a specific gravity of 1,027 degrees, and by subtracting half a crown from each of the rates so specified, except any rate so speci-

  83
  fled for additional degrees of specific gravity in excess of 1,027 degrees:
  Provided that this Resolution shall not apply to reduce any drawback in respect of beer as to which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that duty was paid at the rate in force before the said nineteenth day of April.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  6. Spirits (allowances on export etc.)
  Resolved:
  " That in section eleven of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1945 (which abolished certain allowances in respect of spirits exported or otherwise disposed of), any saving for spirits warehoused or distilled before the beginning of the year nineteen hundred and forty-six shall cease to have effect as from the first day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  7. Pool betting duty
  Resolved:
  " That the enactments relating to purchase tended so as to make duty chargeable whenever a number of persons make, or are to be treated as making, bets on the basis that the winners or their winnings (whether pecuniary or not) shall, to any extent, be at the discretion of the person with or through whom they bet or some other person; and this Resolution shall apply to bets made before or after the passing thereof by reference to any event taking place on or after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty."
  8. Road vehicles (purchase tax)
  Resolved:
  "That the enactments relating to purchase tax shall be amended so that (subject to the power of the Treasury to make orders under section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1948)—

  (a) as from the first day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty, the road vehicles mentioned below shall be chargeable goods, and the rate of tax chargeable in respect of them shall be the first rate; and

  (b) as from the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty, any road vehicles which would otherwise be chargeable at the second rate shall be chargeable at the first rate;

  and any Act giving effect to this Resolution may contain provisions incidental to or consequential on those amendments.
  The road vehicles referred to in paragraph (a) above are any vehicles constructed or
  84
  adapted for use for the carriage or haulage of goods or burden of any description not forming part of the vehicle or necessary for its propulsion or equipment, being either mechanically propelled vehicles or vehicles designed for use as trailers with a mechanically propelled vehicle or as components of a composite vehicle which is mechanically propelled."
  9. War memorials (purchase tax)
  Resolved:
  " That further provision shall be made for the exemption of war memorials from purchase tax."
  10. Supply of goods to H.M. ships (customs and excise)
  Resolved:
  "That the Treasury shall be authorized to make regulations for the purpose of giving relief from customs and excise duties where goods are supplied to or intended for ships of the Royal Navy or naval establishments; and on the coming into force of any such regulations sections one hundred and twenty-one to one hundred and twenty-five of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, shall cease to have effect."
  11. Repayments on destruction of imported goods (customs and purchase tax)
  Resolved:
  " That the law relating to customs shall be amended so as to authorize repayment of duty where goods imported in pursuance of a contract of sale are destroyed unused, being not in accordance with the contract or being damaged in transit; and that the amendment shall have effect also for the purpose of the law relating to purchase tax."

  INCOME TAX, PROFITS TAX AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX
  12. Charge of income tax
  Resolved:
  "That

  (a) income tax for the year 1950–51 shall be charged at the standard rate of nine shillings in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine;

  (b) all such enactments as had effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year 1949–50 shall have effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year 1950–51.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  13. Higher rates of income tax for 1949–50
  Resolved:
  "That income tax for the year 1949–50 shall be charged, in the case of an individual whose total income exceeded two thousand pounds, at the same higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as were charged for the year 1948–49.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  14. Income tax; reduced rate relief, etc.
  Resolved:
  "That

  (a) in subsection (2) of section forty of the Finance Act, 1927 (which, as amended by section seventeen of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1945, and section twenty-eight of the Finance Act, 1948, provides for the relief from income tax commonly known as the reduced rate relief), the words 'thirteen-eighteenths' shall throughout be substituted for the words two-thirds ' and the words ' four-ninths' shall throughout be substituted for the words one-third ';

  (b) in subsection (2) of section nineteen of the Finance Act, 1935 (which, as amended by subsequent enactments, limits the tax on incomes exceeding one hundred and thirty-five pounds but less than one hundred and sixty pounds to three-tenths of the excess) the words one-quarter' shall be substituted for the words three-tenths':

  Provided that the additional relief afforded by this Resolution for the year 1950–51 shall not affect the amount of tax deductible or repayable before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  15. Income tax; payments for restrictive covenants, etc.
  Resolved:
  "That—

  (a) where an individual who holds, has held or is about to hold an office or employment gives an undertaking, whether absolute or qualified and whether legally valid or not, the tenor or effect of which is to restrict him as to his conduct or activities, and any sum is paid or valuable consideration given to him or to any other person in respect of the giving or total or partial fulfilment of that undertaking, such additional surtax shall be charged in respect of the income of that individual as may be determined by any Act giving effect to this Resolution;

  86

  (b) this Resolution shall be retrospective but tax shall not be charged by virtue thereof for any year before 1949–50."

  16. Income tax; electricity wayleaves.
  Resolved:
  "That—

  (1) subsection (1) of section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1934, (which, amongst other things, charges certain rents to tax under Schedule D and provides for the deduction of tax therefrom on payment thereof) shall apply to rent in respect of any easement enjoyed in the United Kingdom in connection with any electric, telegraphic or telephonic wire or cable (not being such an easement as is mentioned in that section) as it applies to rent in respect of easements enjoyed in connection with any of the concerns specified in Rules b>1, 2, and 3 of No. III of Schedule A, not being rent rendered in produce of the concern:

  Provided that

  (a) any payment of rent to which this Resolution applies which does not exceed two pounds ten shillings per year—

  (i) may, if the payer so elects, be treated as not affected by so much of subsection (1) of the said section twenty-one as provides that the rent shall, for the purpose of such of the provisions of the Income Tax Acts as refer to royalties paid in respect of the user of a patent, be treated as if it were such a royalty; and

  (ii) shall in that event be made without deduction of tax accordingly; and

  (b) any payment of rent to which this Resolution applies which is made without deduction of tax (whether by virtue of the preceding provisions of this proviso or otherwise) shall, unless tax is assessed thereon under Rule 21 of the General Rules, be chargeable to tax under Case III of Schedule D as if it were mentioned in Rule I of the Rules applicable to that Case;

  (2) this Resolution shall be deemed always to have had effect and references to the said section twenty-one in any provisions of the Income Tax Acts (including the reference in subsection (2) of the said section twenty-one itself) shall be construed as including, and as having always included, references to that section as extended by this Resolution:
  Provided that where, before the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty, any payment of any rent to which paragraph (1) of this Resolution applies has been

  87
  made without deduction of tax, nothing in this Resolution shall affect—

  (a) any determination of any Commissioners made before the said date as respects the chargeability of that payment to tax; or

  (b) any appeal from or case stated in respect of any such determination; or

  (c) any agreement which, under section fifty-one of the Finance Act, 1949, has the effect of such a determination; or

  (d) any appeal against any assessment the effect of which is to charge that payment to tax, if notice of the appeal was given before that date, and the appeal remains undetermined at that date;

  (3) in this Resolution the expressions "rent" and "easement" have the same meanings as in the said section twenty-one, and the reference to easements enjoyed in connection with any electric, telegraphic or telephonic wire or cable includes (without prejudice to the generality of that expression) references to easements enjoyed in connection with any pole or pylon supporting any such wire or cable or with any apparatus used in connection with any such wire or cable, including any transformer so used.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  17. Income tax: Northern Ireland super-annuation contributions
  Resolved:
  That—

  (1) relief from income tax shall not be allowed to any person under section thirty-two of the Income Tax Act, 1918 (which provides relief for, amongst other things, contributions to secure deferred annuities to widows and provision for children) or under any other provision of the Income Tax Acts providing for relief for income tax purposes, in respect of any contributions made by him under any enactments of the Parliament of Northern Ireland corresponding to Parts I and 11 of the Superannuation Act, 1949, and in particular, under Parts I and II of the Superannuation Act (Northern Ireland), 1949;

  (2) this Resolution shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, for the purposes of income tax for the year 1949–50 and all subsequent years of assessment.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes +Act, 1913."
  "That the extent and incidence of income tax shall be varied so as to give effect to pro-visions

  (a) defining the cases in which, the purposes for which and the extent to which sums which would otherwise be treated as income of a woman are to be treated as her husband's income;

  (b) amending the law as to reliefs from income tax in its relation to married persons;

  (c) rendering a woman, her trustee, guardian, tutor, curator or committee, or her executors or administrators, liable in certain cases for amounts of unpaid income tax assessed (whether before or after the passing of this Act and for whatever year of assessment, including a year before the year 1950–51) on her husband, his trustee, guardian, tutor, curator or committee, or his executors or administrators, and for interest thereon."

  19. Income tax; enemy debts. etc.
  Resolved:
  "That the extent and incidence of income tax (including income tax for years of assessment before 1950–51), shall be varied so as to give effect to provisions as to cases where a recovery is made of or in respect of—

  (a) any debt owed by, or actual or contingent claim on, an enemy or ex-enemy State or Sovereign or a person resident or carrying on business in territory which is or has been enemy or enemy-occupied territory; or

  (b) property which was in or believed to be in such territory or under or believed to be under the control of an enemy or ex-enemy Power, being a debt, claim or property which had been wholly or partly written off for income tax, profits tax, or excess profits tax purposes, or the position of which had been treated as a reason for leaving income tax, profits tax, or excess profits tax uncollected."

  20. Profits tax
  Resolved:
  " That the extent and incidence of the profits tax (including profits tax for past chargeable accounting periods) shall be varied so as to give effect to provisions extending the period for which relief from income tax can be given under section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1937, and provisions as to cases where a recovery is made of or in respect of—

  (a) any debt owed by, or actual or contingent claim on, an enemy or ex-enemy State or Sovereign or a person resident or carrying on business in territory which is or has been enemy or enemy-occupied territory; or

  (b) property which was in or believed to be in such territory or under or believed to be under the control of an enemy or ex-enemy Power,

  89
  being a debt, claim or property which had been wholly or partly written off for income tax, profits tax, or excess profits tax purposes, or the position of which had been treated as a reason for leaving income tax, profits tax, or excess profits tax uncollected."
  21. Excess profits tax
  Resolved:
  " That the extent and incidence of excess profits tax for all chargeable accounting periods shall be varied so as to give effect to provisions as to cases where a recovery is made of or in respect of

  (a) any debt owed by, or actual or contingent claim on, an enemy, or ex-enemy State or Sovereign or a person resident or carrying on business in territory which is or has been enemy or enemy-occupied territory; or

  (b) property which was in or believed to be in such territory or under or believed to be under the control 3f an enemy or ex-enemy Power,

  being a debt, claim or property which had been wholly or partly written off for income tax, profits tax, or excess profits tax purposes, or the position of which had been treated as a reason for leaving income tax, profits tax. or excess profits tax uncollected."

  ESTATE DUTY
  22. Miscellaneous amendments of estate duty law
  Resolved:
  " That as respects persons dying after the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty, the enactments relating to estate duty shall be amended—

  (a) so as to make further provision for charging duty where an interest limited to cease on a death has been disposed of or has determined after becoming an interest in possession, and as to the persons accountable for the duty in any such case;

  (b) so as to make further provision for charging duty on property disposed of during the life-time of the deceased in favour of a relative of his or certain companies;

  (c) so as to make section forty of the Finance Act, 1930 (which exempts objects of national, scientific, historic or artistic interest) have effect subject to conditions for the retention in the United Kingdom and preservation of the objects exempted or otherwise, and to charge duty on those'objects if the conditions are not observed."

  GENERAL
  23. Amendment of law
  Motion made and Question proposed:
  "That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this
  90
  Resolution shall not extend to the making of amendments of the law relating to purchase tax except amendments, if any, reducing the first, second or third rate of the tax generally for all goods to which the rate applies."—[Sir S. Gripps.]
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Eden: As the Chancellor remarked at the opening of his survey, for the last three years we have pursued this practice of discussing in one and the same Debate, both the Economic Survey and the opening of the Budget for the year. I am inclined to think that that has certain quite definite advantages from the point of view both of the Government and of the Opposition; but it also has certain physical disadvantages. The Chancellor speaks—and I make no complaint in view of all the ground he had to cover—for something like 2i hours, after which the Committee's—I will not say capacity or intelligence, because I am sure that is unlimited in time or strength, but at any rate the Committee's desire to listen to prolonged arguments is somewhat exhausted. After consultation with my colleagues, I think it will be our wiser course this afternoon to consider what the Chancellor has had to say and to make our considered comments upon it in the next day or two.
  I want to make only two observations now. The first is that we would give a general welcome to the reduction of taxation on overtime, a welcome none the less sincere because we have advocated it ourselves. We also agree that that can be regarded not only as assistance to the individuals themselves but as assistance to industry. Therefore, it is to be welcomed. The other preliminary observation I want to make is that we are glad that the Chancellor has not repeated last year's complete exclusion of the Purchase Tax from our discussions. As I understand it, there is not even a partial exclusion—U-10N. MEMBERS "There is."1 If there is it is a partial exclusion which we hope will not unduly handicap us in our discussions. That matter can be further probed in due course.
  I conclude by saying to the Chancellor what he knows, that his performance was of a lucidity which we always associate with him. If what he had to tell us was less to our taste, it certainly lacked nothing in the manner in which he presented it.
  Ordered: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Pearson.]
  Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  RIVER IRWELL (POLLUTION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Pearson.]
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The subject to which I want to call attention tonight is the pollution of the River Irwell. Eight hundred years ago, when the hamlet of Kersal in the township of Broughton, which now forms part of the City of Salford, was handed over as a gift to the Cluniac monastary of Lenton, near Nottingham, the most important part of the gift was the fishing rights in the river Irwell. Even in the 18th century the salmon rights in the rivers of Lancashire were let every year for many hundreds of pounds. Today I am afraid that fish in most of those rivers are virtually extinct. Anybody who stands today in the City of Manchester outside the Exchange Station and looks down at the noisome black water which flows beneath him would find it difficult to believe that any fish, or any other living creature, could ever have lived in what the "Manchester Guardian" has so rightly called that "melancholy stream."
  Yet, Sir, from many points of view we should all be proud of the River Irwell. It is the hardest working river in the whole of the United Kingdom. On the 50-mile stretch of the River Irwell and its main tributary, the Roach, stand more than 100 cotton mills, in addition to a large number of other industrial undertakings—slipper factories, bleach works, coal mines, tanneries, paper mills and gas works. I think it is true to say that no other inland river has made a greater contribution to the industrial greatness of this country.
  Unfortunately, however, the amenity value of the River Irwell is practically negligible, although there are parts of the Irwell Valley which from the point of view of beauty, could compare with almost anything in North Wales. But, so far as I know, the only amenity value of
  92
  the Irwell at present is the fact that the Agecroft Rowing Club in the City of Salford still use the Irwell for rowing and, I believe, continue to hold an annual regatta. I know of no other amenity value of this river. It is of no use to agriculture because the water is too full of impurities for livestock to benefit from it. There is no fishing in the Irwell for reasons that I shall come to in a moment. Swimming is completely out of the question, and even walking along its wooded banks is spoiled by the condition of the water. In a letter to me a constituent said:
  " The only real pleasure that the River Irwell can give in this part of the world is the music of water running over the stones, but such is the odour at times that you cannot get near enough even to enjoy this."
  Hon. Members who were in the last Parliament will remember that I have had my differences with the British Field Sports Society, but I have nothing but admiration for the excellent series of reports on river pollution which have been prepared for that Society by Mr. H. D. Turing. When the first of these reports appeared, I wrote to the Society and ventured to suggest that they should make a similar survey of the Rivers Irwell and Roach. These two rivers were covered by the third report; and very sorry reading it made. There are two passages in that report which I should like to read. The first says:
  "The banks are lined with factories, large and small, many of which take their water from the drainage of the hills forming the slopes of the river's valley, and discharge it as a polluted effluent, either into the small feeders, or the main river itself, so it may be said that no natural water normally enters the river from its cradle in the moors to its grave in the Manchester Ship Canal."
  The second quotation is one which I find still more appalling than the first. It is:
  " There are no fish in these rivers (apart from a very occasional tributary), no insects, no weeds, no life of any kind except sewage fungus, nothing but chemicals and any dirt which cannot be put to profitable use. Sewage effluents (and, being usually very good, they are the most encouraging feature of the appalling situation) are hailed with delight as being the purest water which the rivers hold."
  The full importance of that statement will be realised when I remind hon. Members of the frequency with which residents in Bacup, Ramsbottom, Manchester and Salford are subjected to flooding from the waters of the Irwell.
  From the report of the British Field Sports Society, it emerges that there are

  93
  three main sources of pollution—the paper mills, the dyers and the tanneries. I appreciate that all these undertakings have been labouring under very great difficulties. For example, the paper mills, during and since the war, have had to make do with straw for pulping when they would sooner have been using esparto grass or the wood which they used to use before the war. I am afraid that there may be very little hope of reverting to the use of esparto grass and wood in any quantities during the next few months or even years. The difficulty is that straw requires a much greater degree of caustic soda for pulping purposes than either of the other raw materials. The result is that the caustic flows in great quantities into the river, causing, in Mr. Turing's words:
  a gruesome-looking foam to cover the surface, killing off any life which may by chance be trying to establish itself, and stultifying the effects of attempts to purify other effluents."
  Perhaps I can give an example along these lines. It is, I believe, the practice of manufacturers who have works along the Irwell—if they take water direct from the river for feeding their boilers—to introduce water softeners in order to counteract the effects of the natural hardness of the water. I know of one undertaking where it is frequently unnecessary to introduce water softeners because the water is so heavily impregnated with caustic soda from paper mills nearly two miles up stream.
  The dyers, too, are faced with serious problems. I think hon. Members will appreciate that if a dyer succeeds in getting a really fast dye which will not wash out of cloth, it is extremely difficult to remove it from the spent dye which goes out of the works in the form of an effluent. The consequence is that every day literally millions of gallons of grotesquely coloured fluid, often with a transparency of less than one inch, are discharged into the Irwell or its tributaries. I know of one dye works—not by any means one of the biggest—which uses 1,250,000 gallons every day, all of which is discharged into the river in the form of an effluent. The result is that at different times of the day the Irwell may be all the colours of the rainbow. On 2nd November, for example, the chairman of the general purpose committee of the Bacup Corporation, reporting to his council on what he called the "increasing pollution of the
  94
  river," said that at 8 o'clock that morning the river was a vivid orange colour, with suds rising 18 inches high on the water, and that by noon it had changed to an intense black.
  I do not want to give the impression that this is a new problem, or that nothing is being done about it. In fact, it is an extremely long-standing problem and, in spite of what I have said, substantial progress has been made. Even within living memory, the scum on the Irwell was so thick at times that birds could be seen walking on it. The work done since then, however, has produced some results. I should like, particularly, to pay tribute to the work of Dr. Southgate, the Director of Water Pollution Research at the Water Pollution Research Laboratories at Watford and also to the Lancashire Rivers Board, who have tackled this problem with great keenness and zeal. 1 think that the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) will agree that the Lancashire Rivers Board have been doing extremely good work. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, because I discovered the other day that it was one of his predecessors, Mr. John Kenyon, Member for Bury, who in 1899 moved the rejection of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Bill and succeeded in getting it talked out. I am hoping that the hon. Gentleman will do something tonight to make up for the error of his predecessor.
  We have, in fact, in Lancashire enjoyed various powers in this matter denied to other parts of the country. The Mersey and Irwell Joint Committee Act of 1892 was in many ways a model of its kind, and that Act, together with the Lancashire County Council (Rivers Board and General Purposes) Act of 1938 gave the Lancashire Rivers Board powers not possessed in any other industrial area outside the West Riding of Yorkshire. I believe that the Board have been making as full use of those powers as is practicable under present conditions. I certainly believe that the local authorities and the industrialists in the area are unanimous in praising the Lancashire Rivers Board for the efficient and speedy way in which they have tackled their herculean task. Nor do I complain of the manufacturers in the area. I believe that the needs of the nation have made it necessary for them to do various things which it might

  95
  have been possible to avoid under easier circumstances. Far be it from me to propose placing upon them heavier burdens than those which they bear at present.
  I am not suggesting that this is an easy problem, and I am not claiming that I have any solution for it tonight. If all the trade effluents in the area were discharged straight into the sewers, there would be precious little river left over long stretches. If, on the other hand, we adopted the "closed circuit" system, by which each undertaking purifies its own water and uses it over and over again, that would be very desirable if it could be done. Unfortunately it is impracticable in many cases, and would, I am afraid, place a heavy financial burden on industry which it would be difficult to justify in the economic circumstances of today.
  Indeed, I do not believe that we can hope for any very radical measures under present conditions, but I raise the problem tonight because I want to focus attention upon it, and I hope that, as a result of this Debate, some manufacturers will be encouraged to make that little extra effort in dealing with effluent which may make all the difference between the River Irwell being a dirty river and being the disgracefully dirty river which it is at present. The advantages to the manufacturers themselves would be not inconsiderable if that could be done.
  At present, we are in a period of transition. The excellent Lancashire Rivers Board are to give way shortly to a new board, the Mersey River Board, which is being set up under the River Boards Act of 1948. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary tonight when that Board will be set up, when it will be in operation, and what more effective contribution it will be able to make towards coping with this problem than its predecessor has made. Are we at last to have a standard of water purity laid down as suggested in the Hobday Report? I hope he will tell us whether his Ministry, in co-operation with industry and with the River Boards, has any concrete plan, practicable under present circumstances, for restoring to our rivers some of their original beauty.
  I will conclude by quoting from a leading article in the "Bury Times" of a year ago:
  96
  "It is time the public conscience was roused and a check put to the practice of turning our rivers into open sewers. It is time, too, that a more determined and scientific approach to the problem of industrial effluents was made. Dirty and filthy rivers in which all natural life has been killed should no longer be tolerated. Given the will, a much more successful effort could be made to clean our streams and rivers, and industry, the River Boards and the Government must get together to devise a plan."
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: I think that a great public service has been done by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) in raising this point. He has put forward the facts with fairness and accuracy, and though, in the same way as myself, he is not able to suggest an immediate practical solution, nevertheless, it is a very good thing to bring the matter forward, even if the moment is one when we have not a crowded House to listen to us.
  The hon. Gentleman pointed out that I represent the constituency—although he only mentioned Bury—which has a direct interest in this matter. I would remind him that the constituency is Bury and Radcliffe, he having kindly handed over half his previous constituency which, from his point of view, I now misrepresent. I should like to add that while it is perfectly right to try to bring this matter forward with the idea that action should be taken in every possible way, we must not let ourselves slide into an attitude of wishful thinking with the idea that we can do very much to restore the Irwell and its tributaries to what they were before.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale has referred in rather surprising terms to the British Field Sports Society and the benefit he received from the advice given by somebody there. But if his mind is in a state of change about blood sports he might remember that when the Irwell was a pleasant stream for fishing and boating and bathing there were also foxhounds and beagles who practised their wickedness there along its banks. Today the only real trouble the local hounds have is to learn the difference between red and green lights.
  The river Irwell has been described to me as "no longer a river but a drain."
  Mr. Jack Jones: A sewer.
  Mr. Fletcher: A drain—I select my own word. With the greater care now taken by industry—and on which a very watchful eye must be kept—in an area where streams running into the Irwell cause great pollution before they come near the boroughs of Bury and Radcliffe and where single industries on streams running into the Irwell, some in the hon. Member for Rossendale's own constituency, cause much pollution, no easy remedy exists. In an area where industry is urged to greater production and efficiency the chances of making the Irwell anything but part of the industrial machine are practically nil.
  It may well be that action that can be taken here will be a useful warning for other parts of the country where rivers have not got into the advanced and awful state that the Irwell is in now. I do not think it is wise to be very optimistic and to think that very much can be done to restore the Irwell and to make it a pleasant stream in any way at all. If something can be done, industry undoubtedly will lend a hand and the local industrialists and Chamber of Commerce are extremely keen to help. If industry will co-operate with the successor to the Lancashire River Board there is possibly a chance, not that we shall notably improve the waters of the Irwell or the Roach, but that we shall show to authorities concerned with rivers not yet in that advanced state of pollution, the best way of preserving in something like decency a stream which must essentially serve industrial purposes. There are many of these streams in the country.
  I hope the Minister will realise that all those responsible for these areas are at one in wishing to arrest or even to mitigate the terrible pollution that has taken place. I hope an effort will be made to improve the position and above all to set an example of what can be done in other streams. I have not found in my division a voice raised against such an effort. I have found great willingness to co-operate in every possible way, bearing in mind that industrial efficiency and maximum output unfortunately must take precedence over the amenity value of the Irwell.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Jones: I speak as one who, with the exception of perhaps
  98
  one hon. Member, lives as near to the Irwell as anybody in this House. We have listened to a carefully designed Budget Speech which stated that we must increase production, and I am one of those simple fellows who believe that to secure that production one must have a sane and satisfied atmosphere in the workshops. I speak on behalf of those disciples of angling who get enormous pleasure from a few hours of fishing. I know of nothing more relaxing or more calculated to take one away from the turmoil of this House than fishing. This Debate will have been of value if it does nothing more than to draw the attention of the Minister to this question of ensuring that the rivers of Lancashire where fishing is followed, are not allowed to get into the same condition as the Irwell.
  With the growth of industry there has been a great increase in the disposal of effluent. Leather, paper and other industries have had to find an outlet for their effluent and the River Irwell has become an industrial sewer. As a result we do not see on the River Irwell what is to be found on the River Weaver where, the Minister if he goes there at the opening of the angling season, will find thousands of good honest British workmen enjoying a little repose not 30 miles from the Irwell.
  I hope that everything possible will be done in the future to safeguard the amenities of rivers of this kind, where working men can have the form of sport they enjoy most, just as some hon. Members opposite can rent at high prices reaches of salmon rivers in the North of Scotland. I hope that as a result of this Debate no rivers will be allowed to get into worse condition, and that the Irwell will receive more attention. I should like to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) for raising this matter on behalf of working men who derive enormous enjoyment from fishing, to the benefit of their industrial production.
  6.28 p.m.
  Colonel Clarke: Like the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) I join in the Debate because I am a fisherman, and I want to see the sport of fishing distributed as widely as possible. I know that the pollution of many of these rivers in industrial areas is preventing a great number of people

  99
  who might enjoy that sport from doing so. I am glad indeed that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) has brought up this matter with regard to the River Irwell. As an officer of the British Field Sports Society I should like also to thank him for the complimentary remarks he made regarding the work of the society in trying to prevent this pollution.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) has left the House, because I should like to emphasise exactly what the society have done in this matter. My hon. Friend said he thought the hon. Member for Rossendale had obtained the benefit of advice from the British Field Sports Society. Actually, of course, the society has spent a great deal of money in recent years in having surveys made of these rivers and letting people know what a tremendous amount of harm was done in this way during the industrial revolution and what a tremendous amount of pleasure is now being denied to fishermen in industrial areas.
  I feel that my hon. Friend was rather defeatist in this matter. I see no reason why we should submit to the managers of these factories doing what they like. In many cases that is the position. In my constituency I heard only this morning of a case where the County Medical Officer of Health had been trying for some time to persuade a man with a small factory to do something about the effluent. He had just stuck his toes in and said that he did not see any reason why he should do anything, since there was no legislation to make him do it. I know that we cannot discuss legislation now, but I think I should be in Order in saying that I recollect that in the last Parliament we passed an Act which consolidated existing legislation relating to pollution. Many of us have been looking forward to some other Act which will further widen the powers of local authorities and others in this respect.
  This question of pollution does not affect just one river. There are many rivers all over the country which are affected, and the survey of the British Field Sports Society has made this known to the public. I believe the public conscience is now being roused. I am glad that this matter has been raised, and I
  100
  give my full support to anything that can be done to try and put it right. I am certain that a great many people in the industrial areas have been denied a great deal of pleasure, and as a fisherman, I also very much regret the state of this river.
  6.32 p.m.
  Mr. James Hudson: I apologise for intervening in this Debate when Members may desire to bring business to an earlier conclusion than usual, but I have a better qualification for speaking about this matter than most other Members because for many years I lived on the banks of the Irwell. I have had a closer experience of the Irwell than even my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) has had. I fell into it. Indeed, I fell into it in days when the water was infinitely worse than it is now, when it was absolutely black and when the stink of it was different from all other stinks which have ever been experienced by man.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Has my hon. Friend been there lately?
  Mr. Hudson: Yes, I have been there lately. That is one of the points I want to make, that things are now much better than they were in days gone by. I remember, too, that when I fell in I was a prominent worker in the local Band of Hope. The amount of water that I was able to partake of on that occasion—it was not the pure water which we sang about in the Band of Hope—still leaves a reminder of the dreadful things that the mill owners in my hon. Friend's constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) did to the Irwell in those days. Some of them are still prepared to do so.
  I am a little disappointed by my hon. Friend's speech. He spoke too excusingly of the difficulties of the local manufacturers in this connection. The Irwell joins the Mersey near where my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) now lives, and it used to pollute the Manchester Ship Canal. In the Manchester Ship Canal just after the Irwell had entered into it, was the effluent of the Manchester Corporation's sewage works. For many years the local council of the area where I live complained that when night came the Manchester

  101
  Corporation turned their crude sewage into the Manchester Ship Canal. I understand that that has now ceased. The Manchester Corporation has had to make very expensive arrangements for dealing properly with the sewage so that it does not cause a nuisance as the constituents of my hon. Friend do.
  I was appalled at the intervention of the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe. He ought to be as keen on improving the Irwell as those of us who live on its banks lower down. I was appalled at the readiness with which he suggested that this stream was bound to continue to be the defective thing that it has been. The River Weaver is another tributary of the Mersey, and it might be just as bad as the Irwell but for the care that has been taken, at any rate in the middle reaches of that stream, by industrialists who have their works on its banks.
  I do not know what steps can be taken but I hope that greater attention will be paid to this matter. I hope steps can be taken by regulation, and better still by education and appeal, to get the industrialists in the upper parts of the Irwell, round Rochdale, Oldham and up to Irwell Springs, to save the waters of this stream from the pollution that has for so long been practised there. Irwell Springs is a lovely name; it is the only part of the Irwell where there is a little pure water still running. The river is not allowed to run more than about a mile before the pollution begins.
  I admit that a matter like this cannot be put right in a day or two, but action should now be taken. I am a fisherman, although I never hope to see fish in the Irwell. I should think the fishes' memory of what the Irwell has been like during all the time that I have known it, will for ever discourage any poor fish from swimming into the Irwell again. If, however, the fish can go back there it will be something to be thankful for. The people who have lived on the banks of the Irwell will also be grateful because they are so sick of the pollution and stink of that poor stream.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr. Hardy: I make no apology for intervening in this Debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) on raising this question. I do not agree
  102
  that there has been the improvement which it has been suggested has taken place in recent years. I am sure that a great deal more could have been done. I am not an angler, although I have every respect for anglers; but I think this House should be more concerned with the health of the people. Three years ago, when there was a serious flood which ruined hundreds of houses and furniture, the damage was done not by clean water but by filth from the river and its bed.
  If hon. Members were compelled to live next to the River Irwell, something would have been done many years ago; but because these are only working-class people, little or no attempt has been made by the Government to tackle the question at all. In fact, when the flood took place and damage to the extent of £500,000 was done, the Government were approached, but all we got was sympathy Of coarse, sympathy is like gravy without the meat. We had to appeal to the Lord Mayor of London's Fund to enable us to compensate or rehabilitate some of those people —to restore them to their houses with the utility furniture available at that time.
  If steps were now taken by the Government, I feel sure that they would eliminate the fear which exists in the minds of the people who are compelled to live in that area. The River Irwell has been a music-hall joke for many years—as black as ink and filthy. The filth has been responsible for creating a lot of disease. Negotiations have been going on for a considerable time between the catchment board and the local authorities in the area, but the improvement scheme has been abandoned because the Government are not prepared to say what grant they will make towards it.
  I hope the Minister will give us some definite information tonight about the steps which the Government propose to take in order to try to prevent the recurrence of the flooding which took place three years ago. The people who are compelled to live in this industrial area are very seriously disturbed. We can imagine the position after a day like yesterday in Manchester, Salford and other districts around there. I do not want to make it appear that Manchester gets all the rain and that Salford gets none. There was incessant rain from five o'clock in the morning yesterday until late in the evening, and one can imagine

  103
  the fear and dread which exist in the minds of people compelled to live in that area when they see a day like that. If the river were as clean as it ought to be or as it may have been many years ago, that fear and dread would not exist.
  As a representative of this area, and one who has lived in it all his life, I believe the inhabitants will expect me to congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale who raised the subject. We have been hoping for some considerable time that something definite would be done by the Government. I sincerely trust that they will make up their minds to make these people feel happier—or, if they cannot make them feel happy—make them more comfortable in the knowledge that the Government will deal with this serious question of the River Irwell.
  6.43 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I think we are all very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) for raising this subject this evening and also for the wide variety of experiences which have been related by other hon. Members—experiences which went as far as that of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and his trial by immersion. It has been suggested to me that some of his well-known views might have suffered a change as a result of his experience of water on that occasion but, as he rightly says, the water was not the sort of water in which he and others are interested.
  This is, indeed, a serious subject, and it is of the greatest importance that we should give every possible consideration to ways in which we can alleviate the difficulties which arise from the particularly hideous condition of the Irwell. I believe that all those who are in any way concerned with this problem realise that it must inevitably need a long-term policy to achieve any striking improvements to this river. There is no doubt that we can do more in connection with rivers which have not yet reached the state of the Irwell, but that does not mean that we ought not to do what we can for the Irwell itself.
  I want to say a word or two about the action which has already been taken and which will, I hope, continue to be taken
  104
  in the future. I should dike to pay a compliment to the old committee, the Mersey and Irwell Joint Pollution Committee, who did some very valuable work before the war—so much so that it could fairly be said that at the outbreak of the war the river was in a much better condition than had been the case for some considerable time previously. It may be that that is not saying very much, but at any rate the committee did make real progress and showed that it was possible to make improvements.
  Unhappily, during the war and since, the conditions have deteriorated, partly because of the new factories which have been established on the side of the river and partly because of shortages of material, some of which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale. The main problem is, of course, that of the use of straw pulp for paper manufacture. That is, perhaps, the most important single item of all the many contributory factors—and there are many contributory factors. I believe there are some 210 trade premises which have discharged their effluents into the River Irwell by the time it reaches the Manchester Ship Canal, and there is also the effluent from some 54 sewage disposal works, although it may be true that the effluent from the sewage disposal works is pure by comparison with some of the trade effluents.
  The problem is, what can be done, in particular, about the effluent from paper mills what can be done to try to remove the excess soda in the effluent from these mills? Some mills have already installed recovery plants, and both my own Ministry and the Board of Trade are interested that this should be done. The recovery of caustic soda can be of value and we shall certainly encourage in every way possible the use of these plants. We have to face the fact, however, that their installation is expensive, and naturally the mill owners themselves have wanted to know how long they are likely to go on using the straw pulp, which is a substitute for the wood pulp they used previously. As far as we can see, they are likely to go on using it for some time, and the advice we have been given from those who made a very careful survey of the position suggests that, on economy grounds, there may indeed be a need for a further use of straw pulp. We have, therefore, discussed this matter with the Board of Trade and

  105
  we shall see that, before any fresh straw pulp apparatus is installed in any of the factories or in new factories, full consideration is given to methods of recovery of caustic soda.
  The question of other trade premises which discharge their effluent into the river has also been raised this evening, although none is quite so serious as that of straw pulp. Further, the local authorities in the area are considering in what way their sewage disposal works can be improved and whether or not a regional scheme for sewage disposal could be developed. Again, this is inevitably a long-term problem; the solution will take some time to develop, as well as being expensive, but I have no doubt that if it were possible it would be of great advantage to the area. Reference has also been made to the Water Pollution Research Board who have done, and are doing, some valuable research work. They are trying to see whether there is any less expensive way of recovering soda which might help us in tackling that side of the problem.
  As my hon. Friend the Member tor Rossendale said, we are in process of setting up a new river board, as we are in the process of setting up new boards throughout the country, under the new Act. I believe that today the Order has been made defining the area of this new river board. The area of the board will include the Mersey and its tributaries—the Irwell and other tributaries of the Mersey. One of the first problems it will have to tackle will be this very serious problem of pollution here and in the other streams. It will take some time to establish this new board, because the full statutory procedure has to be gone through and a further draft Order has to be made for the constitution of the board itself. It will not directly affect the powers because, as my hon. Friend said, there are wider powers already in existence in that area than in most other
  106
  areas of the country; but it should be possible for the new board to give perhaps rather closer attention to the problem than was possible in the past.
  I should mention the fact that the new river boards will take over the functions of fishery boards. I do not think we can be optimistic enough to hope we can provide for the two hon. Gentlemen who spoke about fishing and the point of view of anglers any catches—or any that they would value—in the river Irwell in either the near or long-distant future. However, we do, of course, take account of those interests in setting up the new river boards, and in considering what action can be taken to preserve other rivers from the sort of difficulties that have arisen here.
  I can say, therefore, that we are giving continual consideration to ways in which we can lay down reasonable standards for rivers. Obviously this is not a matter I can go into fully tonight because it would undoubtedly require legislation, but we are considering the report which has been submitted by the sub-committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee which has made a series of very interesting and helpful suggestions for the future, some of which would not necessarily require legislation to carry through. My hon. Friends and all others who have shown interest in the subject can be assured that we are very anxious on our part to do everything we can to assist in dealing with this problem, remembering all the time the essential economic conditions in which we are working. It is for that reason that I cannot offer an early hope to my hon. Friend, but with the co-operation of the new board and the authorities I am sure some improvement can be made eventually and that deterioration in our rivers can be prevented.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes to Seven o'Clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Old Age Pensioners, Cardiff
  Old Age Pensioners, Cardiff
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Pembrokeshire
  Pembrokeshire
SCOTLAND
  Finance
  Finance
  Highlands (Development Area)
  Highlands (Development Area)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Textile Machinery (Exports)
  Textile Machinery (Exports)
  Government Plant, Hartlepool
  Government Plant, Hartlepool
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Hospital Endowments Fund
  Hospital Endowments Fund
  Drugs (Cost)
  Drugs (Cost)
  Chemists (Payment)
  Chemists (Payment)
  Hospital Committees (Appeals)
  Hospital Committees (Appeals)
  POULTRY KEEPING (REGULATIONS)
  POULTRY KEEPING (REGULATIONS)
  BUILDING LICENCES
  BUILDING LICENCES
  NET FISHING, PORTSMOUTH
  NET FISHING, PORTSMOUTH
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Investment Programme
  Capital Investment Programme
  Central Land Board
  Central Land Board
BRITISH ARMY
  Casualties, Malaya
  Casualties, Malaya
  Strength
  Strength
  Accommodation, Canal Zone
  Accommodation, Canal Zone
  WATER POOL, MONKSEATON
  WATER POOL, MONKSEATON
  SCHOOL DENTAL OFFICERS
  SCHOOL DENTAL OFFICERS
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Reigate
  Reigate
  Godstone
  Godstone
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE ACT (OPERATION)
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE ACT (OPERATION)
TRANSPORT
  Kyle of Lochalsh (Ferry)
  Kyle of Lochalsh (Ferry)
  Road, Burton-on-Trent
  Road, Burton-on-Trent
  R.A.F. COLLEGE, CRANWELL (ENTRANTS)
  R.A.F. COLLEGE, CRANWELL (ENTRANTS)
  IMPORTED APPLES (DISTRIBUTION COSTS)
  IMPORTED APPLES (DISTRIBUTION COSTS)
Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
WAKEFIELD EXTENSION BILL [H.L.] CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DUNDEE CORPORATION (ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

MEDICAL BILL [H.L.]
2.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I venture to invite your Lordships to consider this very important and entirely non-Party Bill. I am sure it will be agreed that it is in accordance with the general rules which we have made as to the character of Bills that are introduced. I may perhaps say, without any egotism, that it presents to me a special personal attraction, seeing that in three months' time from now it will be fifty-nine years since my name was first entered on the medical register. I was then twenty-one years of age. Later on it was my duty to teach for a number of years. The General Medical Council and others connected with the matters dealt with in the Bill have been considering this subject for many years, and there have been careful negotiations concerning it between the different parties. The House will be glad to know that I am assured by the President of the General Medical Council that the Council welcome the Bill and are gratified that time has been
908
found to introduce it. The President has authorised me to say that the Council feel very much indebted to the Departments and other bodies concerned for their co-operation in working out the provisions of the Bill, and that they unreservedly support it. It is a Bill which has been the subject of careful negotiation for many years with different universities, statutory bodies and others concerned.
The Bill has four main purposes. The first is to take measures to improve the standard of medical education and to secure better provision for instruction in the care of patients before a man or a woman is finally admitted to full registration. Then there are proposals relating to the powers and status of the General Medical Council and others in questions affecting discipline and a number of minor matters. One of these, which will not cause your Lordships any surprise, follows from the necessity that has arisen to increase the fee. At the present time, if a man or a woman is registered he or she is at liberty to practise, to sign death certificates and, generally speaking, to discharge all the responsibilities of an experienced member of the profession. I think we shall all agree, whatever be the profession in which we have been trained, that we really begin to learn about it after we have become nominally qualified. This is abundantly true of those who have to deal with human beings in case of real or imaginary sickness.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is true of Members of Parliament also.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It is therefore proposed, in this measure, that when a man or a woman passes the final examination of any of the various universities or other bodies competent to grant diplomas or degrees, he or she should be required to have not less than a year's practical experience of the care of patients under adequate and proper direction in a hospital or other approved institution. It may well be that when we reach Committee stage various points will be raised about the length of this interim period, and also about the character of the institutions in which this period should be spent.
In 1942, when Mr. Willink was Minister of Health he appointed a Committee

909
under Sir William Goodenough with this term of reference:
"Having regard to the statement made by the Minister of Health in the House of Commons on 9th October, 1941, indicating the Government's post-war hospital policy, to inquire into the organisation of Medical Schools, particularly in regard to facilities for clinical teaching and research, and to make recommendations."
One of the important recommendations made by this Committee will be found on page 196 of their Report. It is expressed in this way:
"There has been enthusiastic support among our witnesses, including the representatives of medical students, for the proposal that, in future, entry into independent medical practice should be preceded by a compulsory period of approved and responsible clinical practice under supervision."
I believe it is true to say that that suggestion is welcomed by everybody who has first-hand experience of the practice of medicine. Under this Bill therefore, it is proposed that there should be an interim period during which a person shall, if possible, practise under supervision in some hospital or other approved institution.
When I first read this, I remembered painfully that I had to struggle against poverty for several months before I could take up a junior appointment, which in those days, I may say, was unpaid. This was often a tax on those of us who had small means, because in those days there were not sufficient house physician appointments to absorb all the men and women who qualified in a year. Having made careful inquiries, I am assured that at the present moment there are more vacancies in what are called house appointments in England and Wales and Scotland than there are people becoming qualified or passing their final examination every year. So that, on paper, there is no deficiency of posts. But it will be for the General Medical Council to consider what is meant by "an approved institution." It is clearly desirable that if a man is to have practical experience there should be a sufficient number of beds with patients for him to get that experience, and that problem will have to be dealt with carefully.
In view of the possibility that it may not be practicable to bring into force everywhere at any one time the provision for this interim period of training, it is laid down in the Bill that the General
910
Medical Council shall appoint the day on which this provision shall come into operation. It may be that the same day will not be appropriate in every place. For example, I understand that in Northern Ireland at the present time there is an excess of posts available, but that that may not be so in other parts of Great Britain. Power is therefore taken in the Bill for the Council to bring this scheme into operation on an appointed day—that is to say, when there are sufficient posts of a suitable kind to accommodate all the men and women who have passed their qualifying examination. I am sure we shall all agree that a year passed in dealing with patients under adequate supervision will be an immense advantage, not only to the medical practitioners themselves but also to the public who are their patients. It will be a welcome improvement to the scheme of training. In some parts of the Commonwealth—for example, in New South Wales and in South Africa—such a scheme is already in operation, and provision is made in the Bill for reciprocal arrangements between ourselves and the Commonwealth countries concerned in regard to places where training is undertaken. That is an important provision of the Bill. I think it will lead to a great improvement in the standard of training, because at the end of this period it is proposed that the period of provisional registration will come to an end and the men and women will then be fully registered.
It is also provided that the General Medical Council shall be able to visit and inspect medical schools and examine their standard of training. At the present time all that the Council do is to send visitors and inspectors to examinations. I remember, when I was an examiner at my university, having the benefit on one or two occasions of the presence of visitors. The only certainty I had was that they did not know anything like so much about anatomy as I did. However, they were probably there to see that I did my job properly That was the extent of the powers of the examiners; and it remains so now. It is proposed that they shall be entitled to visit medical schools. On that point I have this to say. I feel it will be sensible that there should not be too great a multiplicity of bodies with powers to inspect. Quite properly, the universities must

911
acquaint themselves with the standard of training and the equipment of the teachers, and as to the laboratories; and the University Grants Committee, who make large grants, have the same authority. Therefore, I feel it is reasonable to hope that this new power of inspection and visitation will be co-ordinated and combined with the exercising of the same powers by these other bodies. I am assured that that will be the aim.
Another part of the Bill deals with the important point of the constitution of the General Medical Council. At the moment this body is rather large and, as we all know, the Council have great powers in the matter of discipline when cases are brought before them. If a medical man, on their decision, is struck off the register, it means that he can no longer earn his living by practising that profession. That is a particularly drastic power. It has been represented for many years past that the constitution of the Council might be improved. The result of this Bill, so far as that matter is concerned, is that the improvement takes the form of making the Council larger still—instead of thirty-nine members, as at present, under the provisions of the Bill the Council will have forty-five members. But linked with that is a demand, which has been expressed vigorously, that, in view of the fact that this Council, if a case is proved against anybody, will have power to strike the person off the register, the members elected by medical men shall be greater in number than they are at present. There are now five members nominated by the Crown, and seven elected members. The different universities and other bodies who have power to grant diplomas can each appoint one member, and in all there are twenty-seven of them. Added to that we must now recognise the Royal College of Gynæcology and Obstetricians, which makes the number of members twenty-eight. It is proposed in the Bill that the number of members elected by the medical men themselves shall be increased to nine—six in England and Wales, two in Scotland and one in Ireland.
I dare say that in Committee points will be raised about these numbers. There is no doubt as to the desirability of increasing, to some extent, the number of elected members. The Crown members
912
are increased to eight. At present there is power to appoint only one layman. In view of the great variety of functions of this Council, I think it is right that there should be more than one layman (my noble friend Lord Nathan is at present the only layman on the Council), and it is proposed that there should be power to appoint three. It is clear that a body of thirty-nine was rather cumbrous to deal with the trials of offences, or alleged offences, and a body of forty-five is open to even greater objection. It is therefore proposed that there shall be a specially appointed Disciplinary Committee which, apart from the chairman, will have only nineteen members. This will certainly be more manageable than a large body of thirty-nine. It is also provided that of the nineteen members of that Disciplinary Committee at least six shall be appointed from the elected members of the Council. That means that substantially one-third of the Disciplinary Committee will be medical men who have been elected by their fellows. I feel that that is a fair proportion, and it is certainly a great improvement upon the present procedure.
In addition to having a more manageable and better constituted Disciplinary Committee, there is a further important provision in this Bill. When a medical man is struck off the register at the present time, he has no opportunity of appeal. It is desirable that there should be opportunity to appeal, and that is provided for in the Bill. The question of to whom the appeal should be made was carefully considered, and I am sure there will be general agreement that the proposal that the appeal should be to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is both practical and right. It will be the duty of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to approve certain rules which will be submitted if they have to go to the Privy Council; and it is also provided that an assessor shall be appointed, who will act under rules made by the Lord Chancellor.
In these times of increased costs, it is hardly necessary for me to point out to your Lordships the reasons why the final fee for full registration is raised from five to eleven guineas. The fee for interim provisional registration will remain at five guineas as at present, but when the final interim period is finished and a man or woman is added to the register, with all the authority which that entails, the fee

913
will be increased to eleven guineas. A further welcome proposal in the Bill is that the name of the body, instead of being the General Council of Medical Education and Registration of the United Kingdom (that is a cumbersome name, and the initials have often befogged many of us in the past) will in future be known as the General Medical Council—and "G.M.C." will be fairly easy to remember. It has been known as the General Medical Council, of course, for many years past, and that will now be its statutory description.
Finally, what is to be the position of Parliament with regard to these rules which will be submitted to the Privy Council and which in certain cases will be bound to deal with matters which vitally affect the livelihood and well-being of medical men? It is provided in. Clause 30 of the Bill, with regard to the more important provisions on which rules shall be made, that they shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament. It may well be that we shall have some discussion later upon the precise form of procedure to be adopted. I have sketched the general outline and the main provisions of the Bill. This is a matter of first-rate importance, not only to the medical profession but to all who look after and care for the health of the people. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Addison.)
3.0 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for having outlined this measure to us in the way he has, and we are all interested to know that it is fifty-nine years since he qualified as a doctor. I am quite certain that, in accordance with Clause 2 (2) (b), "his service while so employed has been satisfactory," entitling him to receive a certificate. We are delighted to have him, with his vast experience, introducing this measure to us to-day. I am told that before the war only about 50 per cent. of the young doctors who qualified went through a hospital before taking up practice, and that during the war, under the arrangements then made—by which doctors had to be apportioned between the Armed Forces and tie civilian population—about 90 per cent. worked in a hospital for at
914
least six months after qualification. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has already quoted to us the recommendation of the Goodenough Committee (which was set up in 1942 and which reported in 1944) that they had overwhelming evidence that there should be a compulsory period of practical training in a hospital or in some other approved institution. I think all your Lordships will agree that that is a good thing, and that we shall also agree with the principle which lies behind the first five clauses of this Bill, that at least twelve months is the right time for such practical experience.
It may be that when we have discussed this Bill further we shall find that the twelve months laid down is perhaps a little rigid. We do not want men or women passing their examinations and then kept hanging about before they can practise because there are not enough vacancies for them to co into the appropriate hospital or other approved institution. Twelve months seems to be about the right time because in another profession, that of the Bar, it is customary that either before or after passing the Bar examinations the young barrister goes into Chambers as a pupil, under the guidance of an experienced barrister, before he undertakes cases on his own in the courts. Young solicitors always have to be articled before they can practise as solicitors. Therefore, in the profession of the law, both in the case of barristers and solicitors, a part of their preliminary training is spent in practical work under an experienced lawyer. In those two professions the men may give bad legal advice, but it will affect only a man's or a woman's pocket. The doctor has a far greater responsibility than that: he has the responsibility of giving advice or recommending treatment which affects a man's or a woman's health—and, therefore, their ability to earn any money at all. Indeed, such advice or treatment may affect life itself. Therefore, I believe that these provisions in the first five clauses of this measure are eminently correct.
I noticed that according to this morning's newspapers the noble Lord, Lord Quibell—I am sorry he is not in the House—has been commenting on the number of doctors now employed in hospitals compared with those formerly so engaged. There is probably a lot in what

915
he says, but if these young doctors are I undergoing practical training, I think it is right that they should be there. It is something to be welcomed, and which we must expect once this Bill has become law. The Goodenough Committee reported that as a nation we are justified in taking pride in the reputation of British medical practice and of traditional British methods of medical education. I believe that this part of the Bill will enable us to take even more pride in the future, because during this compulsory practical training we may raise even further our medical standards in this country.
The value of this provision in the Statute must, of course, depend upon the way in which it is carried into effect. There must be sufficient places in suitable training hospitals or other institutions, and the young doctors must be given some measure of responsibility and yet be given sufficient time for consolidating their knowledge and widening their experience. The Goodenough Committee laid stress on provision being made for these young men and women to have free board and lodging and to be paid an appropriate and uniform salary. I hope that that will take place, and that they will not find themselves in the position described to us by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, who said that when he had to take one of these hospital appointments he had to live entirely on his savings in order to obtain the experience which was necessary for him. I hope that we shall have some assurance that these young men and women will be paid a reasonable and adequate salary, and that in most cases they will be given the board and lodging which they clearly should have.
I now come to Clause 5, which is a new kind of provision in our Statutes. Other parts of the Bill deal with the United Kingdom, with parts of the Commonwealth or Empire, and with foreign-qualified doctors; and then we find a new provision about this area which is suspended 'twixt heaven and earth—the Republic of Ireland. We have a special clause to deal with that particular provision—I refer particularly to Clause 5 (3), which states:
"In the case of any such person registered by virtue of the said provision of the law of
916
the Republic of Ireland, no fee shall be chargeable for provisional registration."
I should like to ask whether that is going to be reciprocal and whether Clause 5 is based on some consultation between the authorities in Southern Ireland and ourselves, or whether it is based only on an idea of what might happen. At the same time I should like the noble Lord who is to reply to glance at Clause 22 (3) (a), because Clause 5 (3) says that in the case of these persons no fees shall be charged for provisional registration. But there is no similar provision in regard to permanent registration: in those cases there is to be a fee not exceeding six guineas for those who come from Southern Ireland. I should like to know from the noble Lord whether, both in the case of provisional registration and full registration, matters are going to be reciprocal between this country and Southern Ireland.
Now I come to Clauses 6 to 11. I quite agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, that it is far better to call this Council, in the Statute Book as well as in practice, the General Medical Council, rather than employ the long list of words which I am not surprised to hear that the noble Viscount himself could not remember on the spur of the moment. For years this body has been called the General Medical Council, and I suggest we had better have it so called on the Statute Book. The directly elected members are, I see, increased in number for England and Wales from five to six, and for Scotland from one to two. That is a step in the right direction. But there are still to be only nine elected members out of a body of forty-seven—which is the total, including the President. I think the elected element might well be larger. Previously it was 17 per cent. of the body, and now it is raised only to 19 per cent. That does not seem to me to be a large enough elected element. I do not think the number of representatives of the bodies that award the diplomas can be cut down; but it may well be that we can add to the number of the elected representatives. Once membership of a body is as large as forty-seven, it does not matter very much if another three or four are added. It is already a fairly large and unwieldy Council if it numbers forty-seven.
I am not sure whether the time has not come to give some representation to Wales. We are giving it to Scotland.

917
After all, Section 6 of the Medical Act of 1858, sot up a branch Council for Wales, as well as branch Councils for England, Scotland and Ireland; but at the present time Wales is still included with England. We ought to consider whether we should not give Wales the same representation as others, or at any rate guarantee that there should be some Welsh representatives. Just as we used to say in other connections, when setting up various Committees, that one or two at least should be women, so we might say here that one or two of the members should be medical practitioners practising in the Principality of Wales.
Clause 10 is more a matter for another place than for your Lordships. It gets over the difficulty of the position of people holding an office of profit under the Crown who happen to serve on this Council. In 1945 a Select Committee of the House of Commons laid down in detail the provisions of a proposed Bill to clarify the whole law in regard to what was and what was not an office of profit under the Crown. I should have thought that this was prima facie the kind of Session where a Bill of this sort, clearing up the whole position, might well be introduced by the Government of the day. It would, of course, be completely non-controversial, and that would be much better than dealing with the matter piecemeal.
The disciplinary provisions, I feel, may need careful scrutiny on the Committee stage. We have to be extremely careful about these matters. The erasure of a doctor's name from the medical register often spells economic ruin, and sometimes social ostracism as well. I very much welcome this much smaller Disciplinary Committee. It is much better thus than for these cases to be tried by the whole of the Medical Council. Certainly, forty-seven would be far too many people to hear cases of this sort. I believe that in other spheres—I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will agree with me or not—nineteen has been found too many. I would much sooner see the smaller panel—a panel composed, say, of the President, and six, or even four, other persons. That would make a tribunal such as is now laid down for quarter sessions—that is to say, about five or seven people. I think we ought to look at this matter during the Committee stage. I am told that, in the case of a
918
solicitor, three persons form a quorum, and that nine persons are appointed to take part in proceedings in which the solicitor's conduct is called into dispute. Something like that would be a great advantage. I very much welcome Clause 15, which states that the Council shall appoint as an assessor
"a barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing."
After all, however eminent many of the members of this Council may be in their medical practice, there, have no doubt been cases where not one of them has known much about the laws of evidence,—what ought to be admitted as evidence, what is mere hearsay or what ought to be excluded. I very much welcome the fact that there will be an assessor to advise them on points of that sort.
I also welcome the right of appeal which is introduced by the present Bill. Of course, it is the Privy Council to whom the appeal goes and they refer it to the Judicial Committee. I was a little doubtful whether the Judicial Committee were the appropriate body. Trials before the Judicial Committee are normally more expensive than those before the High Court, and this is the final appeal. On the other hand, there is the advantage in the Judicial Committee that it will avoid any conflicting differences between the High Court here, the Court of Session in Scotland and the appropriate court in Northern Ireland; so perhaps on balance it may be the right tribunal to which an appeal should go. I am a little doubtful about Clause 16 (2) which lays down that:
"For the purposes of any inquiry … whether a person has boat guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect, a finding against him in any matrimonial proceedings in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, being proceedings in the High Court or the Court of Session or on appeal from a decision in such proceedings, that he has been guilty of adultery with a particular person shall be conclusive of that fact."
There are, of course, many other types of unprofessional conduct which may be cited. They were referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, in giving judgment in the case of the General Medical Council v. Spackman, reported in 1943 Appeal Cases. We are merely picking out here one set of circumstances which shall be conclusive; we are not dealing with other matters. I rather veer to the opinion that, if he wishes, the man

919
ought to be able to bring those matters in issue again when he is being tried, as it were, for his livelihood. But perhaps that is more a Committee point.
I now come to the Interpretation clause, Clause 31, which states:
"'appointed day' means such day as the Privy Council may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed for the purposes of different provisions of this Act or for the purposes of the application of any such provision to different classes of case."
So far as I can make out, under this Bill as it comes before us there are at least six different types of appointed day. What I would like the noble Lord who is to reply to tell me, if he can, is whether the Government have any idea what length of time will elapse after this Bill becomes the law of the land before these different appointed days can come into effect. It would be interesting to know what sort of timetable the Government have in mind in regard to bringing this measure into effective operation. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, this is in no way a controversial measure. While welcoming all its main provisions as right in principle, we shall give the Bill our attention during the Committee stage to see whether as a result of discussions between us certain clauses cannot be improved. Your Lordships can rest assured that, so far as lies in our power, we on these Benches will not enter into such discussions in any controversial spirit but merely to try, as we always do in all parts of this House, to ensure that the measure goes from this House as good as we can possibly make it. With those words, I should like to wish this Bill a successful passage through this House.
3.27 p.m.
LORD HORDER: My Lords, in the first place, I should like to join with my noble friend Lord Llewellin in thanking the Leader of the House for his clear exposition of the principles underlying this Bill. Despite his preoccupation with anatomy and politics over a number of years, I think it is still most appropriate that this Bill should be introduced by a member of my own profession. Both in this House and outside, I have been rather a severe critic of the Government, during the last two or three years. I am not contrite. I still think that in some respects the practice of doctoring in this
920
country has been mishandled by the Government. When some of us charged the Government with trying to get control of the doctors in this country, the charge was indignantly denied. "Who could suppose," said the Government apologists, "that any motive underlies the proposed Act, other than the achievement of better doctoring for the community? "Whatever the true answer to this question may be, we find to-day, the teething stage of the Act being over (and "teething" is perhaps not inappropriate in connection with the Act) that the doctors are under control and that not only has the promised betterment in the standard of doctoring not arrived but, in the judgment of many of us, the standard has in fact deteriorated. Vast sums of money have been poured out for the Health Services of the country, and we consider that as yet the country has not received an adequate return.
To-day, however, I am on the side of the Government. I believe that the first five clauses of this Bill do, or should if properly administered, add considerably to the efficiency of doctoring and general practice in Great Britain. The Bill does not improve the conditions of doctoring but it does give the doctor the best chances of being efficient. If we consider for a moment what are the assets of a good doctor, I would say that they are four. I should put first a fitting and cultivated personality, without which nothing can be done; I should put next a thorough training in his profession; I should put third his ability to cream off from science the best that science can offer in the diagnosis and treatment of his patient, and I should put fourth a sense of responsibility. If any one of those assets could be strengthened in the British doctor, I should say it is the fourth. The old apprentice system having died out and there being nothing with which to replace it, immediately after qualification and synchronously with registration the young doctor goes out into practice ill-fitted in respect of the sense of responsibility and judgment (which is born only of experience) and the ability to declare the inherent principle which is in him. If properly administered, the present Bill can render assistance in that respect.
The history of the principle underlying the first five clauses of the Bill has been very clearly put before us by the noble

921
Viscount the Leader of the House, but, as my noble friend Lord Llewe]lin said, it will take some time to implement that principle. Several points call for careful consideration, and I hope I am not trespassing too far if I mention them briefly. First, is it clear that this additional year—the year which the provisionally registered qualified medical men and women have to put in for the sake of perfecting themselves as doctors—is to be added to the present five or (as it may sometimes be) six years of the ordinary curriculum? That is perhaps a position that should be safeguarded, so that the present curriculum is not so modified as to make this very desirable twelve months part of the five or six year period. Another point is, what is to be the status of the qualified but only provisionally registered doctor? I suggest that the provisional registration should entitle him to full responsibility and privileges within the terms of his appointment, such as are accorded to registered medical practitioners in general. The question has arisen, for example, whether he is legally entitled to prescribe dangerous drugs. I submit that that is a point which requires a little consideration and should be made clear. May he sign death certificates? May he certify as to insanity? Together with some others which I propose to raise, I think those are points which can be definitely established in the final drafting of the Bill.
The question of remuneration is mentioned. Should the remuneration of the provisionally registered doctor be the same as the present rates for house appointments? My answer would be that it should be at least at the level of those rates and not below them. When does the remuneration of the provisionally registered but qualified medical man begin? We cannot of course have a number of these provisionally registered men and women sitting about unremunerated, because that would mean that they were being prevented from earning a livelihood. So this point also will require some clarification. The noble Viscount felt that he could reasonably assure us that there was a sufficiency of hospital appointments available for these provisionally registered doctors. I am not certain of that. It is not only a question of how many institutions or hospitals can be approved; it is also a question of the availability of a sufficiency
922
of clinical material. These people are still being trained. Granted, they are being trained in a different but an equally important sense as when they were trained as medical students; but I consider that any approved hospital should be able to provide a minimum of twenty beds or an equivalent number of out-patients—preferably, of course, both in and out-patients—before it is approved. The mere statement that there are so many thousand available posts answers only one of the desiderata, the other, in my judgment, being that there should be a minimum requisite number of beds or of out-patients. It may then be found that there are not sufficient of these posts.
Suppose that that should happen. Would it not be a good thing then that some of these people should be accredited to recognised, approved groups of medical practitioners? If the objection be made: "How can we decide to which group of practices we can safely attach these people? "I would give as a tentative answer: "The Government has already approved health centres." We know that that was a vision; we know that that was an attraction of some magnitude to the doctors before they signed on the dotted line; and now, two years after the appointed day, we know that health centres do not exist, that priority must be given to houses and homes, and so on. This proposal might be an incentive to get on with the health centres, so as to provide some venue in which these qualified, provisionally registered young men and women can work. We must remember that this idolatry of the hospital has gone rather far. These young men and women are not going to be faced with hospital practice; ultimately they are going to be faced with domiciliary practice. If we put them into positions such as are suggested, should they become keen on major surgery and specialist forms of practice we shall defeat our object. Our object is to make them more efficient doctors, not to feed their already avid desire to leave the ranks of general practice and become specialists. Therefore I am merely putting it forward that perhaps the Bill could be so drifted (I believe it says "approved hospitals or approved institutions") that a health centre might be regarded as an institution. I should like that point borne in mind.

923
Then with regard to "specialties," as we term them in our jargon—diseases of children, diseases of the eye, diseases of the skin, and obstetric practice—is experience of these medical or surgical? Here again it may be that in the actual wording of the Bill the medical and surgical spheres could be so expanded as to include these special subjects. They are all-important subjects, and special hospitals where they are taught, and where patients suffering from these particular diseases are treated, would be an admirable field in which to place a number of the provisionally registered men and women. Some other matters that must inevitably crop up in the implementation of this Bill will be dealt with by regulation. May I plead on this occasion that before they are issued such regulations may be discussed with members of my profession? We were promised that in another connection, but the promise has not been fulfilled. It seems to me that it would be lamentable if any administrator attempted to carry out this quite admirable principle without very free consultation with—if I may be egregious for the moment—those of us who do know.
As to the second part of the Bill I have not much to say, but I would offer a few comments. The Bill provides for two more directly elected representatives to serve on the General Medical Council—that is, an increase from seven to nine. I agree entirely with the last speaker, Lord Llewellin. I think that even nine is an insufficient number, and that twelve would be better. I am one of those who hold the view that if you want to keep order in a house you should give some power to the master of the house—though it may be said that the doctor is no longer the master in his own house. With regard to the question of the code of conduct, I would submit that from Hippocrates downwards the doctor has had not only much to say but the major say in what is good and what is not good in his code. Therefore I would plead for rather fuller direct representation on the General Medical Council.
Now as to the question of appeal. Like Lord Llewellin, I was very doubtful whether the appeal suggested—namely, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—was as good as a right of appeal
924
to the High Court. Right of appeal to the High Court allows of a still further appeal to your Lordships' House, whereas appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council does not so allow. However, I have had the advantage of discussing this point with my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, and I received an assurance from him that this was all right, that it was satisfactory that the appeal should be to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In fact my noble and learned friend rather led me to think that it was the more satisfactory of the two alternatives. Therefore on that point I have nothing more to say. From reading the Bill, I am not clear whether a very useful part of the machinery of the General Medical Council, the penal cases committee, will still function. Perhaps that is for the General Medical Council themselves to decide. But if the committee—which is a sifting committee—is to continue, I hope that it will have a different personnel from the Disciplinary Committee, who have a final say in regard to matters brought before them.
My last comment is in respect of Clauses 16 and 17. I understand that although not bound to do so under the present Medical Act—the Act of 1858–the General Medical Council do, in fact, arrange for what is termed "due inquiry" when a doctor has been convicted of felony or misdemeanour. As I read the present Bill, it would be possible for the Council to proceed to erasure of a doctor's name in these circumstances without a formal inquiry. The defence bodies of the profession, who after all handle 90 per cent. of the cases on the doctors' behalf, tell me that they consider it would be very undesirable that there should be no formal inquiry or that the habit of making an inquiry should be dropped. They therefore contend strongly that Section 20 should be so amended as to provide for this due inquiry to take place in all cases. Questions have arisen as to the total number of members on the Disciplinary Committee and as to what size the quorum should be. As a doctor, and one who has not so far had the misfortune to come before the General Medical Council, I have no views on this point, and I will willingly accept the best available legal advice—and the best legal advice is available—on this point.

925
My Lords, the last time I spoke in your Lordships' House I pleaded with the Government concerning certain disruptive aspects of the National Health Service Bill. The noble Viscount who leads us, when he saw me outside the House, exercising the privilege of a very old friendship, which to me is also a valuable one, said he could not understand how I could talk such rubbish. May I diagnose, by looking at his face to-day, that my stock has risen a little in his estimation, and that there is more sense, therefore, in what I have tried to put before your Lordships? All the same, I would say that in the near future I may still fall from grace in Lord Addison's estimation. But I am not unduly disturbed by the thought that he joined the medical register five years before I did—for the reasons which I gave when I opened these remarks. His preoccupations have been very important and very successful, but for many years they have not been medical.
3.50 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I certainly do not wish to take up your Lordships' time, because there is a long list of speakers in front of us and most of the points which I might have made about this Bill have already been made. I should like to join with noble Lords who have spoken in giving a warm welcome to this Bill, because I feel that, whatever be the profession or section of the population to which we belong, we must be pleased to find that some reformation is taking place in the functions and constitution of the General Medical Council which have for a long time been discussed amongst doctors and lawyers.
I should like to take up one or two points. The first is in connection with the period of provisional registration laid down in Clause 2. We have been told that the number of posts that will be available in hospitals will be sufficient to meet the number of qualified students who will be coming along, and I am prepared to accept that assurance; but, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I would put forward a plea for the possibility of part of the twelve months being spent with an approved panel of general practitioners. The point was raised in Chapter 15 of the Report of the Goodenough Committee, which merely says that the proposal was brought up for con
926
sideration but the Committee did not recommend its adoption because of the serious difficulties that would arise in the choice of suitable practitioners and subsequent supervision of students' work. I cannot see that that is a valid objection, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, when he replies, can give some reason why it is impossible for students to spend part of their time with an approved general practitioner or group of general practitioners. Clause 2 (1) says that it will be possible for part of this time to be spent in an approved institution. I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Horder, in asking whether that means in one of the health centres, no matter what their form is going to be whether one of the newly built centres or a modified one.
And again, what is to be the status of those qualified but not registered practitioners? The question arises whether they can sign death certificates or prescribe dangerous drugs. Suppose they cannot, then there must be some kind of house physician or house surgeon working above them. That will mean that after the twelve months of supervised training they will need to take further jobs as house officers, which will prolong the period before they can go into practice. I should like to be assured that the people doing these jobs will have full status as practitioners and will not be in a sort of semi-responsible post. In regard to the recommendation that hey should spend part of the time with practitioners, even though that may be only experimental for some time or tried out in one or two cases, I think this would improve the status of the general practitioner. There is rather too much emphasis on the importance of the work done by the hospitals. Important work is done by consultants and specialists there, but if students were encouraged to spend part of the year with practitioners it would mean that many of them would be more willing than at present to go into practice. At the present moment, a great proportion of students wish to become consultants—a very laudable desire, but one which is quite incapable of being fulfilled; and it is not until they have tried once or twice to become specialists that they rather reluctantly go into practice. If training under a general practitioner were made an important part of their training, it might draw more people to that side of the

927
profession, and that, I think, would be to the advantage of the profession in general.
I join with noble Lords in welcoming the fact that a practitioner who has been struck off by the General Medical Council will now have the right of appeal. I do not know whether this point is covered by the Bill or not, but I should like the General Medical Council to have the power to give some punishment other than striking off the register. I do not see in the Bill any mention of the power of suspension. Perhaps the Council can arrange this matter themselves. I wondered, however, whether the form of punishment could not be laid down in the Bill, as in other Acts of Parliament. My last point is perhaps purely one for the Committee stage. I wonder whether the words "guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect" could be changed. I would suggest something simpler, such as "professional misconduct." The words in the Bill sound rather medieval and formidable, and I think that these I suggest are quite as unpleasant and just as damning.
3.58 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I do not want to intervene for more than a moment, because most of the points I should have raised have already been dealt with. Speaking in general terms, I think it is unfortunate that Clauses 1 and 2 should be drawn so rigidly as to bind the General Medical Council in certain respects. For example, a minimum period of twelve months is laid down, but twelve months may prove not to be practicable. And it may well be that if the General Medical Council were not so rigidly bound the reforms we all so heartily desire could be introduced at an earlier date. It may be that the Council will find difficulty in finding the requisite number of posts to fill the requirements of the Bill. As an example, I would call your Lordships' attention to Clause 3 (c) where, in the case of a practitioner or qualified man in the Commonwealth, or from a foreign country, the General Medical Council are empowered to accept that he has "otherwise acquired such experience." I should have thought that the same provision might well be applied to our own countrymen.
In regard to the Disciplinary Committee, and the clauses dealing with that
928
question, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, when he says that he thinks the Committee is too large for a tribunal. It may well be that the panel should be large, but the number selected to sit on any trial should be limited, not by laying down a quorum but by providing that the number sitting should be limited to a more reasonable figure. I also support the noble Lord, Lord Horder, in the view that there should be some sifting committee independent of the tribunal. I am considerably disturbed by the fact that the decision of this tribunal, which may have such serious effects on the individual, spelling practical ruin, can be arrived at by the casting vote of the chairman, in addition to his ordinary vote. I should have thought that it would be wiser to say in the Bill that a conviction carrying such a terrible penalty should depend on a clearly stated majority.
There are other points in regard to the disciplinary side which have disturbed many members of the profession, and some of them have been mentioned today. One is that there is only one charge— it may be beautiful English, but it has an ominous sound—namely, "infamous conduct in a professional respect." I am sure that "professional misconduct" would be the term adopted by other professions. There is a further source of anxiety about this disciplinary procedure — namely, that in practice, if not in fact and in law, there is a verdict either of guilty or that the charge is not proven. Now that witnesses can be put on oath, I should have thought it reasonable that a man who was completely exonerated should be declared not guilty, rather than that the charge was not proven. I would support the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, in suggesting that there might be power to give some other sentence than erasure from the register. I also support those noble Lords—including the noble Lord, Lord Horder—who suggest that even if there is a report on conviction, or a report of something in divorce proceedings which is regarded as "infamous conduct," it should be the duty of the Disciplinary Committee to hold "due inquiry" in spite of those reports. My only anxiety with regard to the appeal is lest the cost of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be prohibitive. I dare say we shall receive assurances on these points. I am hoping

929
that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be a guide and philosopher in steering us on the right path in regard to these legal points on which many men are very disturbed.
Finally, as this is a Medical Bill and not a General Medical Council Bill, we should consider whether there is any important point outside the provisions already drafted which might be included. One point that has been brought to my notice is that while the curriculum is extended by a year, while the training is much more exacting, and while the public are more dependent on scientific guidance in time of illness, yet the maximum penalty for a man masquerading as a qualified practitioner without any grounds for so doing is only £20.
4.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, it has been suggested that I might say a few words to your Lordships at this stage, though I propose to talk only about the legal provisions and, in particular, the Disciplinary Committee. Let me say, quite frankly, that I regard a committee of nineteen dealing with disciplinary questions as on the large side. I would much rather have had a committee of, say, nine—which is a quorum with its chairman—because I think it is important that you should be able to get the chairman and the committee acting as a body and as a whole. I feel that that becomes difficult with a number such as nineteen. However, this point has been discussed with the General Medical Council, and they are particularly anxious that all interests should be represented. It is for that reason that the number nineteen has been selected. I believe I am correct in saying that at present the committee is the whole body—and I think it now comprises thirty-nine. Nineteen is better than thirty-nine, from my point of view, though I confess that I feel nine would be better than nineteen. That is a matter which we shall certainly consider on the Committee stage, and if we can get agreement on some such lines as those, I personally should welcome the membership of the committee being made only nine.
I am pleased that there has been so little criticism of the provision—for which I must admit I am mainly responsible for an appeal to the Privy Council. I saw the doctors about this matter. They all
930
thought it undesirable that there should be three appeals, one to the High Court in England, one to the Court of Session in Scotland and another to the appropriate Tribunal in Northern Ireland. Each body might lay down its own standards, and they might be differing standards. Everybody thought—and it is obviously the fact—that was most undesirable. Yet the General Medical Council and the Disciplinary Council will, in practice, always meet in London. If they were peripatetic, and sometimes sat in Belfast and sometimes in Edinburgh, it would be easier to provide that appeals from their decisions when sitting in Edinburgh should go to the Court of Session, and so on. But I came across this practical difficulty: that it is extremely difficult to decide what is a Scottish case: and what is an English case. There might be a case of professional misconduct involving, for instance, adultery, when the adultery took place on both sides of the Border. In trying to arrive at a definition it is difficult to define which would be the appropriate tribunal. The Scots are rightly jealous and proud of their system of law—and the more I see of the Scottish system of law the more I realise that they have every reason to be proud of it.
The advantage of going to the Privy Council is that you are there going to a Court which has upon it the most eminent Judges from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There may be some criticism, because this is not what we have done for dentists, for pharmacists and for other similar cases. However, in this instance I thought we were justified in doing it. I think it has given the medical profession complete satisfaction and, so far as I can gather, it seems to satisfy your Lordships. The idea that an appeal to the Privy Council is necessarily expensive is wrong. In the first place, the person accused can appear in person, if he so desires; and secondly, in practice, I am assured that the great majority of doctors, if not all, belong to a Medical Defence Union who see them through their difficulties. But even if that is not so, I have no doubt that we shall be able to avoid undue expense failing on a particular person who desires to get his case heard. All these matters are typical Committee points, and your Lordships will not find me unyielding or unreasonable in regard to any of them.

931
I should like to say a word or two about Clause 16, which has not been fully comprehended. Ever since the Medical Act, 1858, the law has been that wherever there has been a conviction, the General Medical Council (as they used to be—the Disciplinary Committee as they are to-day) take that as a fact. They then have to consider simply whether that conviction is of such a grave character that it should involve a man being struck off the register. I feel that that is reasonable. Otherwise, just contemplate what might happen. Suppose there was a doctor convicted of murder, and let us assume that he is reprieved and is sentenced to penal servitude for life. It would be quite intolerable that this Disciplinary Committee should have to try all over again the question of whether he had or had not committed a murder, a question which had been pronounced upon by the appropriate court. They accept the fact of the conviction, therefore, and, of course, in the case I am putting it would be obvious that the man would be unfit to remain on the register. In the case of a lesser crime, under the Act of 1858 they have to accept the fact that the man has been guilty of that crime, and then they have to consider whether that crime is of such gravity as to make it necessary to strike his name off the register.
Divorce has been a difficult question, but in the Spackman case, which was decided by this House in 1943, a principle was laid down which I venture to think was really obvious on the law. The Act of 1858, Section 29, reads as follows:
"If any registered medical practitioner shall be convicted … of any crime or offence, or shall after due inquiry be judged by the general council to have been guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect, the General Council may, if they see fit, direct the registrar to erase the name of such medical practitioner from the register".
Now in the case of adultery, obviously, under the words of Section 29 of the Act of 1858, they could remove him only after due inquiry. The due inquiry which they had to make, according to the Act, was both as to whether the man had committed adultery and as to whether the person with whom he committed adultery was in such a special relationship to him as a doctor that there was the element of
932
professional misconduct. What we propose here—and this again is a point we can consider on Committee—is this. Where he has been found by the appropriate court to be guilty of adultery, is the Disciplinary Committee to accept that fact? If they do not they are virtually sitting as a court of appeal from the Divorce Division, which is the last thing they want to do and the last thing I think they are fit to do. The fact being granted that he has been guilty of adultery, what they have to consider is whether or not the relationship and the circumstances of the case were such as to make that in any way an act of professional misconduct such as to justify striking a man off the register. I think that is the right way in which to approach the matter, but it is a question which we shall most certainly consider on the Committee stage, if noble Lords so desire.
I believe those are the main points which were raised, and I feel happy to think that upon this part of the Bill there has been general acceptance of the proposals which we make. We shall certainly welcome a discussion on the Committee stage, because we are most anxious to make this Bill as good as we can. The only other point which was raised was whether or not there should be a power to reinstate. I think I am right in saying that at present the only power of punishment that the General Medical Council have is to strike off the register, but what they do in practice from time to time is to postpone judgment. Under our Bill, we are proposing by Clause 19 that where the name of the person has been erased the Committee may, if they think fit, at any time direct the registrar to restore that name to the register. In that way we shall arrive at the result which I think is desired. The Disciplinary Committee will strike him off, and thereafter he can apply to be restored to the register. I have no doubt that in deciding whether or not to do that, the Committee will have regard to the gravity of the offence of which the man was accused and convicted. We arrive at this result in a rather indirect way, but whether or not it might be better to state that there should be a power of postponement for a definite time is one of the matters which we can certainly consider in the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Would the Lord Chancellor add one word on another

933
point? I do not wish to make a speech, but it may be that this particular point did not reach his ears. If I understood my noble friends rightly, both Lord Horder and Lord Webb-Johnson made an observation which was addressed to subsection (1) of Clause 16. As I followed it, they said that there ought to be due inquiry before a doctor who had been convicted of an offence was struck off the register. I venture most respectfully to think that the comment is based on a misunderstanding. I think subsection (1) is needed solely because in the interval since the Medical Act of 1858 was passed, there has come into existence the Republic of Ireland; therefore the words which were put in the Medical Act long ago and applied simply to the United Kingdom must apply also if the conviction is a conviction in the Republic of Ireland. Suppose that there has been a conviction. If I understand the position rightly, that does not mean that the Disciplinary Committee will strike off the doctor's name without notice to him, or in his absence. The first step would be that a complaint or information would be given to the President, and he would then direct that there should be proceedings of which the convicted man would, of course, be given notice. It is perfectly true that when he had been given notice, the fact that he had been convicted would be conclusive. That has always been so. But it is not the case that there would not be due inquiry. I believe am correct in saying that both my noble friends mentioned the point, which I think had struck others who had looked at the Bill outside.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising the point, and I am sorry I did not make it plain. I entirely agree with his reading of the matter. The conviction is conclusive, but that does not mean that the man is automatically struck off the register. Another point has to be considered—whether the conviction is of such gravity as to justify this sentence.
VISCOUNT SIMON: It may be a question of identity; he may say, "I am not the right man."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If you want to act on this, you have to give the man notice and bring him before the Disciplinary Committee. You accept the fact that he was guilty of an offence as
934
found by the court, and then you have to consider, after giving him a chance to make his case, whether the conviction is sufficiently serious. I do not think anything else is possible. That has been the law ever since 1858, and the noble Viscount is quite right in saying that the alteration to Clause 16 (1) is merely to deal with the new situation which has arisen by reason of the fact that there is now a Republic of Ireland. If that is not done, consider what you let yourself in for You have to have a new trial in every case of a criminal offence, which is quite impracticable. You must accept the criminal offence and then ask yourselves: Is there sufficient gravity to justify striking him off? What we are doing in the case of adultery is to put it on the same footing. The Disciplinary Committee will accept the fact, but they will then consider whether the nature and the circumstances in which that adultery was committed are of a character which will require them to take disciplinary action.
4.20 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I venture to enter upon a legal matter and ask a question to clear up a point concerning the method of procedure of the General Medical Council. I understand that it has been the practice in the past for members of the Council to be constituted as a penal eases committee to determine a prima facie case which may come before them. It is suggested that if that is to continue—and it seems the kind of arrangement which would probably continue as a common-sense way of dealing with the situation—anyone who has served on that sifting committee should be precluded from being a member of the Disciplinary Committee which subsequently tries the case. The matter has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson and, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Horder. But it is a matter of substance, and I think it would be helpful if w could have it cleared up now; it is a question which certainly will have to be faced before the Committee stage, since, if I am right, it may necessitate an Amendment to Clause 13.
The second point I wish to raise concerns the twelve months' service in a hospital which must now be undertaken by doctors when they have completed their normal studies, been provisionally

935
registered, and are ready to enter on the stern business of medical practice in the ordinary way. They are now to have another twelve months' training before they are fully registered or, perhaps one may say, licensed to practise. They are to have this extra twelve months in a hospital or an approved institution. As a matter of fact, many doctors at the present time already do six months' training, and I believe that a very large number do a year's training. It would be interesting to have information from the noble Lord who is to reply on how many do six months and how many do a year. I have been given estimates of the number of doctors taking a six months' course varying from 50 to 90 per cent. In the war period, of course, practically all doctors on qualification took a twelve months' period. In fact, for general medical practice or for any responsible hospital work, it is extremely desirable that this should be done. The Services, who require continual reinforcements of doctors, strongly prefer men with a year's experience in hospital. With regard to the question of providing the appointments which these men could fill, the information I have leads me to think that there will be enough places to provide appointments for all who require them—that is to say, there are more places needing house appointments than there are doctors wanting to fill them.
Another point—I think it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Horder—concerns the matter of health centres. Lord Horder suggested that health centres might be the kind of approved institution to which young doctors on qualification should be attached for their year's training before they are given a general licence to practise as and how they please. I would say to the noble Lord that a health centre is not primarily a building; it is primarily a group of doctors working together. And that is what is needed—to get doctors working together in teams. If you get that—and I know that some are in process of formation—the fact that the doctors are working in places which are not well equipped, perhaps with old-fashioned dispensaries and other difficulties of that kind, will not prevent the work they do from being medically very efficient and will not prevent their constituting themselves as in fact a health centre—a building from which health
936
should radiate and in which all doctors should pool their resources to give the best possible service to people in the district. If we are to have such health groups formed, it seems to me very desirable that young doctors should be, as it were, apprenticed to such a group, as an alternative to going into some institution.
It is agreed on all sides that we welcome this Bill. It will improve the standard of medical education and medical practice, and it will improve medical work carried out for the benefit of the public. And this improvement will be brought about by regulations which, if they do not meet the wishes of your Lordships' House or of another place, can be annulled. I think, therefore, that the safety of the public is completely and suitably protected. It seems to me that we should welcome this Bill in every way and do our best on the Committee stage to improve it and to make any small amendments which are required.
4.26 p.m.
LORD HACKING: My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill. One great advantage of it, which has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Horder, is that it is not forced upon an unwilling profession, but in the main is a measure which is agreed between the Government and the existing General Medical Council. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, is going to address your Lordships. I understand that he is at present a member of the General Medical Council—the only lay member amongst thirty-eight colleagues, all of whom possess a profound knowledge of one branch or more of the medical profession. I occupied for no less than fifteen years, from 1931 to 1946, that same position which is now occupied by Lord Nathan to-day. Even before I was compulsorily retired (I think that is the expression which is used today when the Government have no further use for you) more than four years ago, the question of the reorganisation of the personnel and the function and powers of the General Medical Council was under active discussion and negotiations. The hand which guided these discussions was that of the late President of the General Medical Council, Sir Herbert Eason. For many years he inspired his colleagues on the Council with

937
his enthusiasm for the general welfare and integrity of the profession in which he was such an outstanding figure. He laid well and truly the foundation stone of this Bill, and was the chief builder of the edifice. It is sad that he could not see the completion of his work. I would pay my humble tribute to the memory of this remarkable man, under whom I sat for a period of about ten years.
Credit should also be given to the Registrar of the Council, Mr. Michael Heseltine, for the great part which he played from the very commencement of the discussions until their successful completion some months ago. Officials seldom receive their full share of recognition for the immense amount of work which they undertake so willingly and so efficiently in a task such as this, and it is because of that fact that there is just one other member of the staff of the General Medical Council whose name I should like to record for some excellent work, possibly of a less spectacular kind, but nevertheless of very great importance. I refer to Mr. Heseltine's most able, modest and conscientious assistant, Miss Taylor.
Turning to the Bill, I agree entirely with what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and also I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said: that it is good that the title of the new.body is to be simply the General Medical Council. Long titles are fashionable at the present time. It is a relief to know that, instead of the existing cumbersome title which the Leader of the House found impossible to remember, the new body is to possess this simple name "General Medical Council" by which it has in fact been commonly known for many years. I am particularly interested in the constitution of the proposed new Council. Incidentally, it takes a whole page of the Bill to announce the number of members who are in future to sit upon the new Council, and even then they are only gated by reference to the Medical Acts of 1858 and 1886, and by reference to certain Orders in Council.
I would ask noble Lords who are interested in this form of legislation to look at Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who is to reply to this debate, will let me know how many members there are in fact to be upon the new General
938
Council. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House said forty-five; the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said forty-seven. My arithmetic, such as it is, brings the total to forty-five, but there seems to be doubt about the number. I am not surprised, because if one looks for example at Clause 7 (2), one sees the words:
"So much of subsection (1) of section seven of the Medical Act, 1886, as provides that the Council shall include one person chosen from time to time by each of certain specified bodies shall have effect as if among those bodies then: were included the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists."
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, how many members on the new Council come under that subsection. I think he will find it not very easy to answer. I do not press aim for an answer now. Perhaps he would prefer to have notice of that question, but I feel sure the total is forty-five. These clauses are extremely involved. As I have said before in another place—I am not sure whether I have said it here—I cannot understand why Parliamentary draftsmen apparently take such a delight in making an Act of Parliament SD difficult for us laymen to understand. It. makes one suspicious that there may be some collusion between these draftsmen and possibly the legal profession. How right was Mr. Gilbert, of Gilbert and Sullivan fame, when he said:
"Law is but a lottery, all lawyers draw the lot."
I wish profoundly that the wording of Acts of Parliament could be a great deal more simple than it is, so that there would be less necessity for the lawyers to draw such a lot.
Clause 6 of this Bill says that there are now to be three lay members among the forty-five who constitute the Council, instead of one lay member out of thirty-nine. After some experience I wonder whether this increase is necessary. The full Council—I draw a distinction between the full Council and the Disciplinary Committee—will deal with the medical standards for registration 71, such as the qualifying examinations, the training and experience in hospitals, The full Council will also control the publication of the British Pharmacopœia. I suspect that these subjects are not understood by lay men, who can make little or no useful contribution

939
to the deliberations when the subjects are before the full Council. At any rate, that used to be the case when I was a member of the Council, for I tried valiantly during my fifteen years of office to become a member of the Pharmacopœia Committee. My application was always resisted by the chairman and other members of that Committee on the grounds that I knew nothing about the subject. I fear that was right: I did know nothing about the subject. Consequently, I was not picked to sit on the Pharmacopœia Committee. The same position, surely, applies to-day. I maintain that the layman is not a fit person to deal with a subject of that kind. He cannot learn it even after several years on the General Medical Council. Therefore I feel it is almost unnecessary to have three laymen instead of, as in the past, one taking part in the deliberations of these subjects.
When we come to the Disciplinary Committee, it is laid down in Clause 13 that only one member out of the total of nineteen need be a layman. Personally, I think that is insufficient, If there are to be three out of forty-five on the full Council, then I suggest that these three should all sit on the Disciplinary Committee. Your Lordships may not remember why a layman was ever appointed to the General Medical Council in the first place. It was to allay public suspicion. There were certain ill-informed and even malicious people who said openly and wrote in the Press that certain doctors had had their names erased from the register because of jealousy on the part of medical members of the General Medical Council. This accusation, was, of course, completely and absolutely untrue, but the fact that the general public, the consumer interest, is adequately represented on the Disciplinary Committee does give confidence to the general public and minimises the risk of an unfair attack being made upon members of an honourable profession. For that reason, I should have liked to see at least two, and if possible three, lay members on this Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said that nineteen was too large a total membership for the Disciplinary Committee. I said that I sat for many years as a member of the General Medical Council, the whole body then consisting of thirty-nine, and that
940
whole body dealt with the disciplinary cases. So far as I could tell, justice was always done. I myself do not think that a Committee of nineteen, with a quorum of nine, is too large a body to deal with these cases.
Clause 14 empowers the Disciplinary Committee to administer oaths and to enforce the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. That, of course, is very sound. We have suffered a great deal in the past from the fact that we could not put a witness on oath, and especially because we could not compel the attendance of witnesses. The change will be helpful, and justice will be performed with far greater certainty under the new proposals contained in this Bill. In theory, I think that almost every member of your Lordships' House who has spoken has said that it would appear right that there should be an appeal from the decision reached by the Disciplinary Committee to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That there must be the right of appeal is obviously right in theory, and probably this is the best body by which the appeal could be heard. I can only hope that in practice this right of appeal will not be abused.
It has already been pointed out by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that there is only one punishment at present and in the future which the Disciplinary Committee can impose—namely, that of erasure from the register. It follows that on appeal the sentence cannot be increased, so the doctor has everything to gain and nothing to lose by his appeal. This may lead to a large number of appeals having to be heard. A right of appeal is obviously necessary, however, and at the moment I can think of no better method which could be adopted than the one suggested in the Bill. I leave it at that, in the hope that my fears may be found to be groundless. I have nothing further to say on the Second Reading, except again to welcome this Bill and to express the hope that the principle contained in it will be unopposed. I repeat my humble congratulations to all those who have had the wisdom, the industry and the foresight, to bring this measure before your Lordships and before Parliament. I am certain that it will turn out to be a most useful piece of legislation, equally valuable from the point of view of the doctor and, what is just as important, from the point of view of the general

941
public. I wholeheartedly support the Second Reading.
4.42 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords,.I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time for more than a few moments, and in addressing your Lordships for the first time I would ask for the customary indulgence of the House. The matter I wish to raise is one to which reference has already been made by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House; nevertheless, I feel that I should perhaps emphasise it, as I know it is giving rise to some anxiety on the part of the authorities concerned, particularly those of the University of London. It has to do with the authority to Abe given to the General Medical Council to visit and report on medical schools.
As the noble Viscount mentioned, the medical schools of the University of London are visited regularly by the Senate of the University, and in recent years the University Grants Committee has extended its interest in medical schools and proposes to visit them once every five years. The proposed visits by the representatives of the General Medical Council will clearly lead to an increased danger of overlapping and of inconvenience due to multiple inspection and reports. The difficulties are greater in the University of London than in other Universities because of its federal character, with its numerous schools. This makes it necessary for the Senate to carry our regular visits which are not so necessary in other universities. Here, therefore, the schools will have three regular visitations instead of two as elsewhere. This slate of affairs is clearly to be avoided if possible, and it is hoped that some arrangement may be come to whereby the representatives of the interested bodies can visit the schools as a single body. I am very glad to hear that the Government are fully aware of this difficulty, and I hope that a solution satisfacfactory to all concerned will be reached.
4.45 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it falls to me to express a word of welcome accompanied by pleasure to the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Stamp. We are very glad indeed to note the informed interest which he takes in this subject, and we shall be pleased if on future occasions we have not only his
942
presence but his assistance in arriving at proper conclusions. The principal point raised by the noble Lord will be considered by the Minister after this debate is concluded. It is felt that there is something to be said for looking into the danger that might arise from too frequent inspections, and if there is anything we can discuss with the noble Lord on that matter we shall be very glad to do so.
Now may I say a word or two in reply to my noble friend, Lord Webb-Johnson? I am going to be particularly brief, because after the fine speech made by my noble Leader in moving the Second Reading and the assistance we have had from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, all that remains for me is to deal with the very simple cases. Lord Webb-Johnson said that he thought that Clauses 1 and 2 were too rigidly drawn. I understand his point of view and we will certainly look into the matter raised. But I ought to point put that these two clauses are in accord 'with the Report of the Goodenough Committee. I think the noble Lord will agree that, whether or cot one agrees with the findings of that Committee, one is bound to admit that it consisted of men of great influence and experience in these questions. Moreover, the two clauses have since received the approval of the General Medical Council; so that the Government is fortified in the draft which has been put forward. Nevertheless, we will look into the subject further and perhaps we may have opportunities of further discussion with the noble Lord.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, raised the question of the reaching of decisions by the Disciplinary Committee. He rather objected to the casting vote of the chairman being used to pass sentence upon a medical man brought before the committee. I would point out, however, that that has always been the case in the relationship of the General Medical Council to men who have been brought before it because of some mistake or other that they may have committed outside. It has had a long history in practice, and, so far as I know, no doubt has previously been raised upon it. However, we will look into the doubt raised and we will communicate with the noble Lord between now and the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raised the question

943
of the strength of the Medical Council under the Bill. The present strength of the Council is thirty-nine and the strength of the Council under the Bill will be forty-five. If the noble Lord has been following the discussion he will have realised that on the Committee stage of the Bill we may be faced with a 'number of Amendments proposing an increase in the strength of the Council.
LORD HACKING: What I was a little anxious about was the disagreement between the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and Lord Liewellin. Lord Llewellin said the total was forty-seven and the Leader of the House said it was forty-five. I calculated it at forty-five, and I am glad to hear that I was right and that for once Lord Liewellin was wrong.
LORD SHEPHERD: The present strength is thirty-nine and the proposed strength under the Bill is forty-five. That figure will, of course, be subject to any amendment that may be decided upon in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage. One other point was raised in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, to which I might give an answer—namely, in regard to the position of laymen upon this particular body. I quite understand that there may be discussions where the layman will find himself almost completely out of the running. Indeed, I myself felt somewhat like that to-day when I listened to noble Lords who have long medical experience. But the General Medical Council is not an instrument elected solely in the interest of the medical profession; it is, indeed, a public institution, and its job is not merely to look after the interests of medical men but to see that justice is done for the public. Therefore it is desirable that there should be laymen upon this body, and the Government believe that in suggesting an extra two they have not gone too far in the matter.
LORD HACKING: Would the noble Lord deal with the question relating to the Disciplinary Committee? Does he think that one layman is sufficient when dealing with cases relating to contravention of discipline? Does he think that one layman is sufficient, bearing in mind that he will be guarding the interests of the public?
LORD SHEPHERD: I would not like at this juncture, to say "Yea" or "Nays" to that question, but I will give it consideration and perhaps we can deal with it at a later stage.
Now I come to the very helpful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I think that he not only received this Bill very warmly, on behalf of His Majesty's Opposition, but he also dealt in a very understanding way with the matters upon which he touched in his speech. First of all, he raised a question about internes and about the amount of time they are to give to that part of their training. He indicated that he wondered whether we had not been too rigid in fixing a period of twelve months. The Government considered that matter fully, and they realised at once that safeguards would be needed. It will for instance be necessary to make sure, before the appointed day is named, that there will be opportunities for entry upon this section of the work, and the Privy Council, which must name the appointed day, will most assuredly insist that before a man or a woman can become an interne there shall be the necessary room and opportunity. We sincerely trust that the period of twelve months will not be too long for the purpose, and that within that period a man or a woman will have sufficient to keep him or her fully and usefully occupied.
The noble Lord next asked a question about the salaries to be paid to men and women acting as internes during this period of twelve months. It is the opinion of the Government, and it is their intention, that these internes shall occupy house posts, and that the rate for the job shall be paid. I cannot go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Horder, would wish me to go in fixing a rate—that, I think, must be decided elsewhere—but your Lordships may rest assured that in so far as the Government are concerned, and certainly in so far as the General Medical Council are concerned, a suitable salary will be assured for men and women going through this period of work.
In reply to Lord Llewellin's point about the relationship of this Bill with the arrangements in the Irish Republic, I would point out, as I have already mentioned, that, strange though it may seem, the medical profession in Ireland comes somewhat under the jurisdiction of

945
the General Medical Council in this country. Indeed, in the relationship of the two countries medically they are working under an agreement reached in 1927 between the Governments of Great Britain and the Irish Free State. Therefore, when we bring forward measures of this kind and mention facts which relate to Ireland, I think it can be accepted that there has been consultation and agreement. Lord Llewellin raised a point as to the difference between the fee which has to be paid, or which has seemingly to be paid, by a student becoming an interne in this country or in Ireland, and one coming from Ireland under the Bill for interne purposes. The reply to the noble Lord is that on a student receiving a diploma in Ireland following upon examination, and being given temporary registration, the fee of five guineas will be paid in Ireland. So the only distinction is that the live guineas for a student in Ireland is paid in Ireland and not in this country, whereas in this country a student on provisional registration will pay his fee here.
LORD LLEWELLIN: What I was rather concerned with was this question. If the student here, after perhaps paying his live guineas here, went over and practised in Southern Ireland, would he be let off his five guineas, as we are letting off Irishmen who come over here? Is the relief to be reciprocal?
LORD SHEPHERD: The student who becomes provisionally registered in this country will pay his five guineas in Britain. The student who becomes provisionally registered in Ireland will pay the five guineas in Ireland. The only difference is that one is paid in Ireland and the other is paid in Great Britain. Coming next to the point about the six guineas, which followed the one with which I have just been dealing, the answer is that it will depend on where registration takes place. Presumably, if an Irish student, having obtained his diploma in Ireland, pays his five guineas in Ireland and then comes over here for his interne service, and finally becomes registered in this country, he pays six guineas in this country and not in Ireland. Otherwise, if he becomes registered in Ireland, presumably be will pay his six guineas there.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am afraid that what the noble Lord has just said does
946
not entirely cover my point. By the words of the Bill as I read them, no one is to be allowed to charge a fee to a student who has taken his diploma in Southern Ireland. I am only asking whether there is any assurance from Southern Ireland that similar treatment will be given to our students.
LORD SHEPHERD: I understand that there has been complete agreement. However, in view of the fact that the question has been raised in that form, I will endeavour between now and the next stage to obtain further information for the noble Lord.
do not wish to say much more with regard to the point raised by the noble Lord about the numbers to be elected to the General Medical Council. The Bill, as the noble Lord knows, provides for nine. There are proposals which will come up at the Committee stage which will provide for a larger number. I would remind the Hour: that the General Medical Council are not merely a representative body of medical men. They are fulfilling a public function, and they are representative of the training bodies like the universities and the hospitals. It is very important that the representative character of the Council on the practising side should not be unduly great. Between now and the Committee, stage, we may be able to discuss the figures in greater detail.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The percentage now is only nineteen.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think that I am with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in his view as to the effect on a Member of another place of holding a seat on the General Medical Council. This Bill indicates that a Member of another place can be a member of the Council, but that he must not draw fees or expenses. It will be noticed that if a member of your Lordships' House were appointed to the General 'Medical Council, he would not under this Bill be barred from receiving fees and expenses. That also is a matter which I can look up, and which perhaps we can talk over before the next stage of this Bill is reached. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack has dealt with the question of a quorum so I need not enter further into that.

947
The only other point which calls for reply is the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, to the date of the appointed day. I cannot at the moment state what period will be necessary before the appointed day, in all its aspects, can be fixed. It would be possible, for instance, to fix the appointed day for the Disciplinary Committee quite early. It could come into operation almost forthwith. They would be merely taking over the functions at present exercised by the General Medical Council. But when it comes to the appointed day for the internes, then a good many problems have to be solved, as, for instance, the provision of buildings in which they would work, the residences in which they would reside (because they have to be resident), and the question of notice to the present students. Therefore the appointed day not merely will be variable as between one subject and another; it will be variable in one subject where that may be necessary. For example, the appointed day for an interne in Edinburgh may be an earlier day than for an interne in London. All would depend on the circumstances that make it possible.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Does that mean that one section of these young men and women—say those training in Scotland—may have to do this compulsory period before it will be compulsory in England?
LORD SHEPHERD: This provision will become compulsory only as and when circumstances permit. As I indicated in my speech earlier, there are points which will determine the appointed day, whether early or late. But any move will be subject to the decision of the Privy Council, acting on the recommendation of the General Medical Council. I think it may be accepted that neither body will lose time in making progress.
I shall deal with only two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Horder, because the day is getting rather late and the noble Lord is not present. He raised the question of the responsibility of an interne and wanted to know whether he would be able to issue death certificates or deal with drugs. I cannot give a specific reply to that question here. I can merely refer to subsection (3) of Clause 4. There it is contemplated that an interne will be registered only in so far as certain functions can be performed,
948
and no further, and set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are the lengths to which an interne will have responsibility. In regard to approved hospitals, a matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Horder, I do not think we need fear that the hospitals and institutions secured for the purposes of interne training will be other than suitable and practical. They have to be chosen by the universities and other bodies who are responsible for the granting of diplomas, and I think we can take it that a matter placed in the responsible hands of these bodies will be properly dealt with. I am very much obliged to noble Lords for the kindness they have shown to this Bill, and I hope that as we proceed from stage to stage we may improve the Bill, if that be necessary.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COLONIAL AND OTHER TERRITORIES (DIVORCE JURISDICTION) BILL [H.L.]
5.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, to understand the object of this Bill it is necessary to consider the existing Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Acts, 1926 and 1940. The 1926 Act was passed to remove the hardship caused to British subjects having an English or Scottish domicile. Your Lordships will remember that, broadly speaking, divorce is based on domicile. A man may go out to India and be in India all his working life and at the same time retain his domicile in England. But for the Act, the courts in India would have no power to deal with his case and the courts over here would not recognise any decree a court in India made. The object of the Act was to enable the Indian courts to pronounce a decree which would be regarded as valid here. Section 2 of the Act enabled the same provision to be applied by Order in Council to any part of His Majesty's Dominions other than a self-governing Dominion, and the Act has been extended to the Colonies of Hong Kong, Jamaica, Kenya and Singapore, but no provision was made for the application of the Act to Protectorates.

949
Protected States and Mandated Territories, because in 1926, when this legislation started, no problems of this kind had arisen in those territories.
The 1926 Act was amended in 1940 to deal with changes in the English divorce law introduced by the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1937, and although the need for extension to Protectorates, Protected States and Mandated Territories was then recognised, the amending Bill escaped the notice of the Colonial Office until too late for amendment to be secured. So the present position is that the divorce facilities which are available in the Colonies to which the 1926 Act has been extended are not so available to British subjects of English and Scottish domicile living in those large and, in many cases, rapidly developing territories. The anomalies of the present position are clearly shown if we consider the East and Central African territories. While in Kenya British subjects there resident who are still domiciled in this country can bring an action for divorce in the High Court which would be recognised here, it is not possible to bring such an action in the courts of the neighbouring Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Uganda, nor in the Trust Territory of Tanganyika. Representations for the rectification of this anomaly have been received at various times from the Governors of Northern Rhodesia, Uganda and Tanganyika, and the number of cases in which hardship is being caused by the absence of the facilities afforded by the Act is increasing with the increase in the British non-domiciled population in those territories. In Tanganyika, for example, the British non-domiciled population has greatly increased and there is a similar large and growing British resident but none-domiciled population in Northern Rhodesia.
Your Lordships will observe from what I have said that the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act extended only to British subjects having an English or Scottish domicile. It did not deal with British subjects domiciled in Northern Ireland, because in 1926 there was no form of divorce obtainable in Northern Ireland. By the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1939, of Northern Ireland, divorce proceedings have been made possible there and, that being so, there is now no reason
950
why the 1926 and 1940 Acts should not be also extended to British subjects domiciled in Northern Ireland, so that a British subject resident, for example, in Northern Rhodesia but domiciled in Northern Ireland can have the advantage of these Acts just as be would if lie were domiciled in England or Scotland.
This Bill does two things: it provides for the amendment of the Indian and Colonial Jurisdiction Acts, 1926 and 1940, so that they shall extend to British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom and not only to British subjects domiciled in England and Scotland, as hitherto; and it provides that those Acts, as so amended, shall extend to Protectorates, Protected States and Trust Territories. The extension of the Acts to British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom is affected by Clause 1 of the Bill, which extends the Acts in question to persons domiciled in Northern Ireland. Provision for the application of the two Acts to Protectorates and Must Territories is made by Clause 2. The position in Protected States is more complicated, since in most of them there is no such jurisdiction as would entitle Parliament to confer powers on the local court. Clause 3 (1) of the Bill, therefore, provides that if the local Legislature confers powers on the local court His Majesty by Order in Council may provide that the decree of the local court shall be recognised and effective here.
Clause 3 (3) of the Bill deals with the special complication of a group of territories—namely, the Federation of Malaya—which consists partly of territories which by themselves would fall under Section 2 of the 1926 Act or Clause 2 of the Bill, and partly of Protected States. The subsection provides for treating the whole group in the same way as a Protected State is treated under Clause 3 (1). Clause 4 effects a minor amendment of the 1940 Act. Clause 5 is a saving clause in respect of the legislative powers of the Northern Irish Parliament, and is required in view of the terms of Section of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. The short title of the Bill, given in Cause 6 (1), was adopted rather than the title of the Acts it amends and amplifies, because under Section 17 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, those Acts ceased to apply to India. This is a completely uncontroversial Bill, so far as I know, and it re-

951
moves an anomaly, a hardship and an arbitrary distinction between Colonies and Protectorates and Protected States. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. (The Lord Chancellor.)
5.12 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I rise merely to say that, so far as we are concerned, there is nothing controversial in this Bill, and that in both of its limbs—that is, bringing those domiciled in Northern Ireland into the same position as those domiciled in England and Scotland, and bringing Mandated or Trust Territories into the same position as Colonies—it has our complete support. There may be one or two small points to be dealt with on the Committee stage. One happens to have caught my eye in line 9 of the first page. I should have thought that "principles" came before "rules." I see that in line 22 the draftsman has put "principles" before "rules." I think it should be one or the other in both places, and a small Amendment will deal with that. There may be other small Amendments to be moved in Committee, but otherwise this Bill will have our full support.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL
5.13 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, as your Lordships will see, this is a Money Bill. The objects of the Bill are set out in the title, and I do not propose to go into the details other than to say that its main object is to enable money to be raised for capital investment in connection with the development of the Post Office, and that the total sum authorised under the Bill is £75,000,000. I will do my best to answer any questions your Lordships may wish to ask, and in the meantime I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª, —(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª; Committee negatived.

HIGH COURT AND COUNTY COURT JUDGES BILL [H.L.]
5.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It deals with one matter only—namely, the number of judges. There are other judicial matters which might be dealt with, and perhaps will be dealt with, on some future occasion, but this Bill deals only with numbers. I will first of all deal with the High Court. Under the existing law the number of puisne judges of the High Court may not be less than twenty-five nor more than thirty-three. Under this Bill the maximum number permissible will be increased by six, but the actual number required from time to time will continue to be determined by the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Treasury, having regard to the state of business in the High Court as a whole. Under the law as it stands, every puisne judge has to be attached to such divisions of the Court as the Lord Chancellor may direct, so, however, that not less than five are to be attached to the Chancery Division, not less than seventeen to the King's Bench Division and not less than three to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. We propose no alteration in these minimum figures.
Actually, at the present time seven judges are attached to the Chancery Division, including the judge with special experience of the patent law. These are enough, but not, I feel, more than enough, to cope with the work of that Division, particularly having regard to the fact that we have recently transferred the Revenue Paper to Chancery judges. Seven judges are to-day attached to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. They are not more than are needed for the work of that Division. I am not proposing to alter that number, though I do hope that in the future, as in the past, the King's Bench judges will continue to receive valuable assistance from the judges of that Division, who frequently go on circuit and, having finished their divorce cases, are able to lend a hand with the other cases. That leaves nineteen attached to the King's Bench Division. That number has remained unchanged for a considerable time now,

953
but I am satisfied that anybody, whoever he may be, standing in my position, would say that it is not sufficient.
It is a serious matter to contemplate an increase in the number of High Court judges, but I think it is relevant to consider the number of judges in relation to the population. Those of your Lordships who have seen the Interim Report of the Evershed Committee will find the figures set out in Appendix "C" of that Report. In the year 1871, the Report states, there were eighteen judges of the King's Bench Division, and the population was about 22,000,000. In the year 1948 there were twenty judges of the King's Bench Division, and the population was about 43,500,000. So the population, roughly speaking, has doubled, and there are only two additional judges—and of course it is not merely the doubling of the population, but the way in which they behave, which matters. I shall have something to say about that in a moment.
The Court of Criminal Appeal was instituted in 1907, and that has added very heavily 'to the work of the King's Bench Division, taking, as it does, three judges away. The civil work of the High Court in London is back to its pre-war level—indeed, it exceeds its pre-war level. May I give your Lordships the number of King's Bench cases standing for trial at the beginning of the Easter Law Sittings in 1937 and 1950? In 1937 there were 665, and in 1950 1,215–getting on for double. And, of course, although there is a large amount of civil work to be done, unhappily there is this large increase in crime. In 1938 the judges on circuit spent 692 days trying crime; in 1949 they spent 1,019 days, which is an increase of about 46 per cent. Incidentally, on circuit there was a corresponding increase between the years 1938 and 1949 of approximately 20 per cent. in civil cases. In the Court of Criminal Appeal, where as I have said three judges sit together, in 1938 the Court sat on 132 days, and in 1949 on 195 days. Therefore, the increase of crime has put a great and a growing burden on His Majesty's judges. During those years, as I have said, the number of civil actions was creeping up. It went right down in the war, but it is now past the pre-war level. May I give your Lordships a figure for the long non-jury cases awaiting trial at the beginning of the Easter Law Term? It was 168 in 1948, it was 366 in 1949, and it is no less than 707 in 1950.
954
The Lord Chief Justice and I have worked very closely together on this matter, and we have had to enlist the aid of a number of commissioners of assize. Now the power to appoint King's Counsel as commissioners of assize ought, I feel sure, to be reserved for emergencies. The occasional commissioner is one thing, but the regular reinforcement of the judges by commissioners is, I think, another and wholly different thing. The Evershed Committee found among their witnesses a general dislike of the appointment of commissioner of assize. The Bar Council gave evidence that commissioners should be avoided wherever possible; that the system was unsatisfactory both to the litigant and to those who sat as commissioners. Yet in 1949 I was compelled to appoint fifteen commissioners, who sat on 283 days. I was obliged to do that, although I state here and now that I entirely agree with the views expressed by the Evershed Committee as to the undesirability of appointing commissioners as a regular expedient to supplement the judicial strength.
Where there is too much work for the existing judges, the only proper remedy is to appoint more judges, and I am therefore proposing, by this Bill, that there should be power to appoint six more judges. This does not mean that if the Bill passes all six will necessarily be appointed. As I have said, the actual number depends from time to time on the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury being satisfied as to the number which the state of business requires. I feel quite satisfied that at the very least—and I emphasise those words—two are required immediately; and although we have not as many courts as we need, we can find accommodation for at least two. It may well be that if we are to be successful in avoiding the regular appointment of commissioners of assize, two more judges—making four in all—will be needed to give help wherever it is required. The Lord Chief Justice will be better able than I am to give an estimate about this, but I should not be at all surprised if he took the view that the four judges I have mentioned are necessary in order to enable him to cope with the increase in work. If the Bill passes, this matter will be considered in detail with the Treasury and, of course, I shall have u consider at the same time with the Treasury the question of accommodation for these judges.

955
Your Lordships will see that if those four judges are appointed, there will still be a margin of two. The Evershed Committee have recommended the introduction of a system of fixing days for trial. Witness after witness came before them and said that it was the most needed reform of all. A man who desires to brine his action wants to know on what date his action will come on so that he can make his arrangements and business engagements to fit in. There is no doubt at all, however—and I am not prejudging the question whether we should have such a system—that such a system must involve a great waste of judicial time, because one can never tell on any particular day how long the cases are going to last. There may be in the list a number of cases which all prove to be non-effective or which are settled out of court. On the other hand, there may be a list of cases all of which prove to be long and difficult. Therefore, it is necessary to have in reserve judge-power which can be turned on for those difficult days; and if we are ever going to have such a system it must involve a waste of judicial man-power.
Consequently, if that recommendation is ever accepted—and I certainly cannot regard any recommendation from such an important Committee, and made with so laudable an object, as one which can be brushed aside without consideration—we shall certainly need the extra two judges, making six. If we decided to do that, it would indeed be unfortunate that that reform, which is in the nature of an administrative reform, should be held up by reason of the fact that we have not the power to make the necessary judges. Therefore, I am asking for sufficient power by this Bill to allow the appointment of six. I have said nothing whatever about the effect on this matter of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, but it is quite obvious that it may have a considerable effect in increasing still further the amount of work which has to be undertaken.
I should like to say this about His Majesty's judges. Let it not be forgotten that His Majesty's judges have been doing all they possibly can to meet this emergency. They have voluntarily cut down their Lone Vacation by, I think, some eleven days, and they have
956
voluntarily consented to sit, and are every day sitting, longer hours than heretofore. I think we should all recognise the debt which we owe to the judges for the steps they have been trying to take to deal with the emergency. Let no one think that we can cope with this position by asking judges to sit still longer hours. When I sit in a different capacity when this House sits as a court of law, I find that the time I sit is all I can manage if I am to apply my mind at full pressure the whole time to the case under consideration. I do not believe that it is at all desirable that judges should be asked to sit very long hours or, indeed, that a jury should be asked to serve for very long hours.
So much for the High Court Bench. I turn now to the county courts. Under the existing law the maximum number of county court judges is sixty—and that maximum was reached more than three years ago. Since then the work of the county courts has been steadily increasing and is still on the increase, notwithstanding the cessation of workmen's compensation cases. These courts have also to a large extent to take divorce cases. The place where I feel the shortage most acutely at present is in London itself. I have had to go on regularly supplementing my existing number of judges by appointing deputies. In 1949 the number of days on which deputies sat to relieve congestion was 133. That was quite apart from those cases where a deputy sat when a judge was ill or doing divorce cases; it was done simply to avoid congestion. The Austin Jones Committee, who reported on the county courts, deprecated the frequent and regular use of deputies except during illness. I agree with that view and I think the proper course is to appoint more county court judges. I certainly want two more judges immediately in the London area. I am asking for power to appoint five more, but I need hardly say that I shall not appoint more than two unless I am quite satisfied that more than two are required.
It is a long time since Magna Carta—750 years nearly. The Monarch then promised:
"To none will we delay justice".
I think I have an unanswerable case in saying that it is quite impossible to ad-

957
minister justice through His Majesty's judges at the present time unless we substantially increase the number of those judges. It is for that reason that we are here taking power to appoint these judges. If it is plain that appointments are needed, the Lord Chancellor of the day—whoever may fill this position—should not be handicapped from going to the Treasury and, if he can establish his case, asking that more judges should be appointed, so that they may deal justly and expeditiously with the disputes and troubles of the lieges. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.33 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for having introduced this Bill. Judges have for many years been sitting for long hours—until seven or eight o'clock at night—and that is very undesirable. It is also undesirable that juries should sit for long hours, especially as juries are unaccustomed to long hours and to listening to evidence. A severe strain is being put upon these judges, and yet there is no way of getting through the work except by sitting these long hours.
The noble and learned Viscount has told us that he proposes to take power to appoint six judges, and that he is satisfied that two must he appointed at once. I say, very respectfully, to the noble and learned Viscount that although two judges would, of course, be better than nothing, and would no doubt help us to deal with London, the work in London has always had to suffer at the expense of circuits. I am afraid that two judges will make little difference if, as the Lord Chancellor said, we have to discontinue sending commissioners on circuit. If we had four more judges, I visualise that they would be used in this way. We should have to send one extra judge always to Lancashire, though he may not always have to go to Liverpool; we should probably, at any rate for the time being, have to have a third judge in the Manchester area. I always have to ask the Lord Chancellor to send a commissioner to the West Riding. That means that a judge would go there. That is two out of the four.
958
That would give only t No to London—and I think they would have to hold themselves in readiness to go wherever a commissioner was required. At the same time we shall want additional help in London. Fourteen judges have to go out on circuit—though not all at once.
In part of the legal term, except the Easter sittings, there are always a large number of judges or, circuit and there are not more than six—that is to say, the Lord Chief Justice and five puisne judges, in London in the King's Bench Division. We have a great deal of work to do. We have, among other things, to staff the Old Bailey. A judge has to sit in Chambers twice a week. Three judges have to sit practically every Monday in the Court of Criminal Appeal. And as judges go on circuit, arrears are bound to pile up in London—we have fallen back to and indeed passed the pre-war mark in that respect. When I became Lord Chief Justice in 1946 we were still feeling the effects of war. There was a falling-off of litigation. At that time about six weeks elapsed between the setting down of a case and its trying. Now, however, owing to the large number of cases that are being entered, eight or nine months sometimes elapse after a case has been set down and before it is tried. It is true that often the litigants are not ready in much less time, since there is a great deal of work to be done by the solicitors to get the case ready for trial; but there is a great and undesirable lag between the date on which the case is set clown and the date on which it is heard.
I agree respectfully with what the noble and learned Viscount said with regard to the undesirability of the continual appointment of commissioners—Though many of the commissioners who have been sent out lately have been of the greatest possible assistance and, I am sure, have decided their cases as well as they could have done. There have, in fact, been singularly few appeals from them, but litigants feel that they ought to have their case tried by a judge. People in the Provinces have the advantage that their case is heard very much more quickly than are cases in London. There is therefore a great deal of advantage in the sending of commissioners. Even so, if we are to avoid sending commissioners I think four judges is the minimum

959
number required. If only two are appointed, I am certain that London will get no relief unless commissioners are appointed to go on the assizes. That is one matter which I want to emphasise—though I recognise that it means an increase in staffs generally. Where the judges are all to go, I do not know. We have found room in the Law Courts for two judges and if there are any more it looks as if, as is the case with prisoners at present, they will have to double up and go two into one "cell"—and, indeed, some of the rooms they occupy are scarcely better than cells. I have no doubt that we shall find a way in time of dealing with this problem.
The strain is very great. The clerk of assize of a northern circuit works all the week, excluding only Sundays. I believe there have been only five days since January 12 when he has not been working on that basis. This is a problem with which we must deal. Fortunately, there are signs that crime involving long trials is diminishing to some extent. In recent months we have been faced with lone cases of conspiracy to steal and to defraud which largely arise out of black market transactions for the purpose of making illicit profits out of controlled articles. So long as clothing was rationed, wagon-loads of textiles were stolen. Now that it is no longer rationed, that state of affairs no longer exists. As the controls are lifted, so I think this heavy crime will tend to disappear. At the same time, however, there are black spots in the country—I need not mention them now—where crime is so heavy that generally both judges have to be taking the gaol delivery instead of one judge taking civil work and one taking crime. When that happens the only remedy possible is to ask for commissioners. I am sure that we shall all do our best in the future to avoid asking the Lord Chancellor to send commissioners, and I think we shall be able to do that if we get four judges. Even so, that will leave London at some disadvantage with the provinces. I hope your Lordships will give your support to this Bill.
5.41 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon was going to deal with this matter. He has
960
had to leave the House so it falls to me to say a few words. For my part, I think that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, ably supported as he has been by the Lord Chief Justice, has fully made out his case. In fact, I suspect that he had fully to make out the case with the Treasury before to-day. I should like to congratulate him on being able to get the Treasury's concurrence to introduce a Bill of this sort on Budget Day. It is a considerable achievement for the noble and learned Viscount. I agree with all he has said about commissioners of assize. I have no doubt that the great majority of them, because they are carefully selected, do their work admirably, but they do not look the same as judges of the High Court. They do not impress people in the same way, and they do not sit in the same kind of robes. Therefore, the person having his case heard by a commissioner of assize somehow seems to think that he has come off rather second best, because it is a substitute and not the judge himself who is trying the case.
Certainly I hope that the two judges necessary to replace this large number of commissioners of assize will be appointed. I hope that it will come to pass that we shall be able to fix days for major trials. I believe that a great deal more money is wasted by witnesses and important executives hanging about for their cases to be heard than will be involved in paying the salaries of two extra High Court judges for that purpose. The noble and learned Viscount talked about the possible increase because of the new Legal Aid and Advice Act. I think that will occur. That brings us more to the second part of this Bill, for the increase will occur more in the county courts than in the High Court. Therefore, the remarks that I made about the commissioners of assize apply equally to the deputies of the county court judges. Usually they are carefully selected and try their cases well, but it is not the judge himself trying the case. Therefore, I think it is proper to have this power to appoint the additional five county court judges. Two, I understand, will operate in London immediately. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether it is proposed to appoint the other three and, if so, whether that will mean an alteration in some of the county court circuits.

961
I think it is right that judges end juries should not be asked to sit too long hours. Attention is bound to flag. Equally, it is important that we should not have judges who try to get through their lists quickly, hustling through cases which may mean so much to the litigants concerned, although perhaps not very much in the ordinary run of work in the courts. For these reasons, because it will prevent that kind of thing happening, I think we should all support this measure and give the power to have these additional judges, both in the High Court and in the county courts.
5.45 p.m.
LORD ROCHE: My Lords, it would require extreme immodesty and extreme hardihood lo oppose a Bill advocated by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and the Lord Chief Justice; and I need not say that I do not claim that hardihood or immodesty. I desire to make one point only, and that is as to the administration of this measure. My point is that the powers given by this Bill should be exercised with extreme caution. I was a King's Bench judge for seventeen years and I was filled with astonishment and gratitude at the esteem and prestige enjoyed by His Majesty's judges, not least on circuit. It cannot but be that a small body—and it really is a small body—cannot indefinitely be diluted in quantity without some probable sacrifice of quality. The prestige of which I spoke was, in fact, due to the real quality, if I may say so, of my brother judges. I have no doubt that the present judges are very good, but there comes a point at which dilution is dangerous. That is my point.
I would make one observation on the figures which the Lord Chancellor has cited from the Report of the Evershed Committee. I will not say there was a little Chancery confusion about those figures, but they are not very enlightening, for this reason. In 1871, the time they start, the judge's function was entirely different from what it is now. The Summary Jurisdiction Acts had indeed been passed and so had the County Court Acts,,but the High Court judges were then mainly engaged in trying matters which are now dealt with by courts of summary jurisdiction and by county courts. One has only to read the memoirs of the time to see how long those trials lasted, and to observe with what trifling matter they
962
were concerned, compared with the heavy substance involved nowadays. Therefore, I do not think one gains much useful information from these figures, or at least not as useful as it should be. The reason I make this point is that there have been Bills where the Lord Chancellor, however much he may have tried to conceal it, was obviously in sympathy with criticisms of the treasures that were then put before the House, when people in other places who thought themselves wiser—mistakenly, in my opinion—considered that another course should be taken. I would beg of him to resist that ill-informed pressure and not to be over-kind and over-complacent—even with the Lord Chief Justice!
5.49 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I briefly reply? I fully recognise the danger which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, has mentioned. Of course, it is the fact that quantity and quality are enemies. I must be very careful to see that we maintain the high quality of judges which we have had ever since I began to practise at the Bar, which is now a long time ago. I like to think that that quality has been very well maintained in recent years, and I believe that to be the fact. I do not think that there is any danger that I shall have to reduce my quality, even though I have to appoint the full number of six judges. In my discussions with the Treasury I shall certainly bear in mind what the Lord Chief Justice has said—namely, that we ought to have four more judges at once.
I was rather proud that I had obtained the agreement of the Treasury to introduce this Bill; this is an auspicious day from that point of view. But of course I was able to point out to the Treasury that if it turns out in the future that we do not want these extra judges—that people start behaving better, the crime wave dies down, and so on—then, as and when vacancies occur, I shall not have to fill them. We shall try to steer between Scylla and Charybdis—the Scylla of not having enough judges to deal with the amount of work with which they ought to deal, and the Charybdis of having a larger number of judges, perhaps of not the high quality we have to-day, hanging about doing nothing. I think that is a matter which your Lordships will have to

963
leave to the Lord Chancellor from time to time. I am perfectly certain that Lord Chancellors will be able to cope with this matter in consultation with the Treasury.
My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for giving this Bill your approval. I feel (and I do not mind saying it) that in some senses my office is the most important of all in this country, because I am responsible in broad outline for the appointment of the judges and the administration of justice, and it is upon the fair, impartial and relatively speedy administration of justice that our whole civilisation depends. Therefore I commend this Bill to your Lordships, and I thank you for giving it your support.
On Question, Bill read 2–, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1948
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1948
  ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE STATISTICS
  ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE STATISTICS