Sitting of 3 May 1950

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

  TIN PRODUCTION
  Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet considered the revision of the sum of £100,000 provided in the International Tin Research Institute budget for each of the five years ending this year.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): The annual budget of £100,000 applies to the years 1949, 1950 and 1951. The Council of the International Tin Research Institute are responsible for the preparation of the budget, and they have not informed me that they consider any additional provision necessary.
  Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how five years beginning in 1944 can end in 1951?
  Mr. Griffiths: I cannot explain that. All I can say is that the Council have not asked for any additional money.
  Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the excessive production of tin, which is estimated to exceed consumption in 1950 by 45,000 tons, is a threat to employment in Malaya and Nigeria; and what action he proposes to reduce production or stimulate consumption.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: The figure quoted by the hon. Member relates to the estimated excess of production over commercial consumption. I hope, however, that purchases for the United States stockpile will absorb the surplus production this year. As the duration and quantity of these purchases is uncertain, the International Tin Study Group, at its meeting in Paris in March last, by a majority
  1662
  adopted a resolution requesting the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convene, in accordance with the provisions of the Havana Charter, a United Nations' conference at an early date to discuss a commodity control agreement for tin.
  Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the " American Metal Market," which is a United States' journal, attributes the failure to make an agreement for tin under the Havana Charter to the " delay, linger and wait " policy of the United States authorities?

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Groundnut Scheme (Fertilisers)
    Mr. Errollasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what fertilisers have been supplied to African cultivators growing groundnuts in Nigeria and Gambia.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: In Nigeria, 1,000 tons of single superphosphate in large granules are being supplied this year to farmers free of cost. This will be used by the new placement technique for which much less fertiliser is needed than when it is broadcast.
    Mr. Erroll: In addition to the free distribution of fertilisers, will the Minister consider making larger quantities of fertilisers available on repayment?
    Mr. Griffiths: I will, after this initial trial period is over.
    Captain Duncan: What expenditure in dollars is incurred in the supply of these fertilisers?
    Mr. Griffiths: I could not answer that without notice.

    Colonial Students, London (Sports Club)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the acquisition of a sports ground for colonial students in London.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The planning committee have prepared a scheme for a sports club in London for all colonials and their friends, including colonial students. This has my wholehearted approval. The committee are now considering the question of raising funds.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the Minister try to get facilities from existing sports clubs, which would be even more preferable?
    Mr. Griffiths: I should be very glad to consider that suggestion, and I will look into it.

    Development Schemes
    Mr. Yorkasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement as to the directions he will give to the Colonial Development Corporation before starting any large-scale agricultural ventures, to institute pilot schemes in order to test the practicability of the venture.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: There is no necessity for any general directions to the Corporation applying especially to agricultural projects; the question whether large-scale agricultural projects should be preceded by pilot schemes is one for determination by the Corporation in the individual case.
    Mr. York: In view of the fact that, as acknowledged, a great deal of money has been wasted upon the Gambia project, will the Secretary of State make it clear that before the beef raising scheme in the Kalahari is proceeded with a pilot scheme will be instituted?
    Mr. Griffiths: I do not know who acknowledges that there has been waste in the Gambia scheme. I do not.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Do we understand the Secretary of State to say that it has been left to the Overseas Food Corporation to decide whether pilot schemes were necessary or not?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is for the Corporation to decide whether any major scheme should be preceded by a pilot scheme.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is that a change of policy?

    Students' Welfare (British Council)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the grant made to the British Council for welfare work among colonial students, he had made or will make it
    1664
    conditional on the co-operation of the British Council in this respect with student and educational or other organisations recognised as of service to colonial students.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that the British Council themselves made this co-operation one of t'ae conditions of their accepting the grant.
    Mr. Sorensen: Would my right hon. Friend indicate with what other bodies the British Council are co-operating at the present time? Is it not highly desirable that this Council, to which very considerable responsibility has been delegated, should seek the largest operative co-operation with other bodies?
    Mr. Griffiths: The Council have brought other bodies into active co-operation, including the Colonial Students' Union of Africa.

    Medical Service
    Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of vacancies existing for medical officers in the Colonial Medical Service; and whether any steps are being taken to attract to it recruits from Malta.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: There are 213 vacancies for medical officers in the Colonial Medical Service. I have no reason to think that the opportunities available in the Colonial Medical Service are not well known in Malta, but I will consider whether any further steps could usefully be taken on the lines suggested.

  HONG KONG (DAMAGED AIRCRAFT)
  Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding the seven civil aircraft situated at Kaitak Airport, Hong Kong, which were recently destroyed or damaged by explosives.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Early on the morning of Sunday, 2nd April, seven civil aircraft at Kaitak Airport were sabotaged by light explosive charges. None of the aircraft was destroyed, but the aircraft involved have been put out of action, at any rate for the time being. Immediately the

  1665
  explosions occurred the area involved was cleared, and some 12 employees of the two Chinese corporations who claim to own the aircraft were held by the police for interrogation. The police investigations are still proceeding, but so far no charges have been made against any persons. The area was already well guarded by police, but the guard has now been increased and the lighting of the area has been improved. It will, however, be appreciated that the close and constant supervision of 70 aircraft, which are dispersed over the airport to minimise the risk of danger from fire or of damage by storm, and to which the employees of the two Chinese corporations still have access for maintenance work, presents a difficult problem.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of the employees of the People's Government, which is Communist, had passes to give them access to the airport? Can he say whether these men are still in possession of those passes, and, if so, will he take steps to see that they are withdrawn?
  Mr. Griffiths: I should like to see that question on the Order Paper.

  GOLD COAST

    Cocoa Marketing Board
    Mr. Errollasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the figures of profit or loss for the operations of the Gold Coast Cocoa Marketing Board for 1947-48 and 1948-49, respectively.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I would refer the hon. Member to the relevant annual reports of the Board.
    Mr. Erroll: In view of the very high figures of profits given in these reports, will the Minister consider applying some of the surplus to the improvement of the conditions in the territory concerned?
    Mr. Griffiths: I should require notice of that.

    Prisons (Inspections)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what the arrangements are for the inspection of prisons in the Gold Coast.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Regular routine inspections are made by senior members of the Prisons Department. In addition, visiting committees, appointed by the Governor to each of the penal establishments in the Colony, make monthly visits of inspection, hear complaints and make recommendations regarding all aspects of penal administration.
    Mr. Wyatt: How often are these prisons inspected? I have very disturbing details about the conditions in them. If I send to my right hon. Friend those details will he see that the prison inspectors do, in fact, investigate the complaints?
    Mr. Griffiths: If my hon. Friend will send me the details, I will look into them.

    Bungalows (Cost)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. RANKIN:
    30. To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction in the Gold Coast through the decision of the Government to build a bungalow at a cost of £80,000; and why the ceiling of £5,000 per bungalow, agreed on last year, in view of the need for expanding the social services, has not been maintained.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of Order. There is a slight error in line 3, for which I am fully responsible. " A bungalow " ought to be " eight bungalows."
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I have to answer the Question which is on the Order Paper, and the answer is: If my hon. Friend will let me have more precise information as to the bungalows to which he refers, I will make inquiries of the Governor.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether a ceiling which has not been maintained is one which has fallen down or one which has been pushed up?

  MALAYA

    War Damage Compensation
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of state for the Colonies what is the total amount made avaliable by his Majesty Government for the Payment of compensation by the Malayan authorities to

    1667
    persons and firms as a result of the war; and what percentage of that sum has now been paid out by the Malayan Government.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: His Majesty's Government have agreed to make a grant of £20,000,000 and an interest-free loan, if required, of up to £18,500,000 for this purpose. The Malayan Governments are at present utilising local assets derived from the proceeds of the sale of looted rubber and tin, etc., which was recovered from Japan, for the payment of awards under the War Damage Compensation Scheme, and no part of His Majesty's Government's contribution has, therefore, been paid to the local governments.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the Secretary of State tell us whether any of this interest-free loan will find its way into the pockets of the people who made over 60 per cent. profits last year?
    Mr. Griffiths: The grants under this loan are used for the specific purpose to which I referred in my answer.
    Major Tufton Beamish: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any likelihood of an early decision being reached on the paying of compensation? Is he further aware that the long delay has caused considerable hardship to many thousands of British subjects, Chinese and Malayans equally?
    Mr. Griffiths: I gave an answer to that question last week. If the hon. and gallant Member looks it up he will see that interim payments have begun.

    Tin and Rubber Companies
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many tin companies are now operating in Malaya.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: There are 81 registered tin companies operating in Malaya, but these do not include Chinese partnerships. Chinese operators account for about one-third of the total production.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to insert in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of these companies, showing the total profits that they made last year?
    Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman add to that list the losses suffered in the war through our inablity to protect our own fellow-citizens, the dollars earned by those companies since the war, and the number of planters, who with their families, live in daily danger and have, in fact, also lost their lives?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not the interest which has been aroused by this Question sufficient evidence for the Minister to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the full list of profits made by people who have never been in Malaya at all?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am only too anxious to give information to hon. Members on both sides of the House about profits and losses, and if Questions are put down I will do my best to answer them.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Will the same principle apply to those hon. Members, who are paid, who did not vote on Monday?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question on the Paper asks how many companies are operating in Malaya. Any other question is outside its scope, and should not be asked.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, how many rubber companies are now operating in Malaya.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I understand that the number of companies is about 500, but I could not say, without reference to the High Commissioner, what proportion of the total output is accounted for by these companies.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the fact that pressure has been brought on the Government to make rubber a strategic material will the Minister consider the nationalisation of these companies, in the national interest?
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: In view of the fact that the rubber companies include European estates, Chinese estates, native estates and exporters, will the Minister say whether he understands what the question means—because nobody else does.
    Mr. Griffiths: I have been asked for information and I have tried to give it. If hon. Members wish to ask any other Questions they should put them down.

    Ministers' Visit
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a further statement about his proposed visit to Malaya.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I can now say definitely that, with the Prime Minister's approval, I propose to take the opportunity of the Whitsuntide Recess to visit the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will accompany me. We hope to arrive in Singapore about 24th May. An official announcement is being made today both here and in Malaya.
    My right hon. Friend and I are convinced that a personal visit would be useful in order that we may be fully informed on all aspects of the problem. We have every confidence in the ability of those on the spot to handle the difficult situation in Malaya. We hope that our visit will give encouragement to them in the plans and policies which they are pursuing; and will also give further evidence of the determination of the Government to carry through our task in Malaya.
    I had hoped to include Hong Kong in my tour, but I very much regret that the limited time at my disposal, about three weeks in all, would not allow me to do so. I have explained the matter to the Governor. My right hon. Friend will, however, take the opportunity of spending a day or two with the British Forces in that Colony.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman take his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) along, and show him the planters at work in the worst protected area of the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Griffiths: I should like to take many hon. Members from both sides of the House.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the two highest priorities on his trip should be to make it quite clear that we do not propose to clear out of Malaya for at least 10 years—
    Earl Winterton: Never.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: —and to decide whether the introduction of martial law
    1670
    is essential in order that the police can carry out their duties without a sense of frustration?
    Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend also consider taking with him a responsible member of the Opposition, such as the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?

  GAMBIA POULTRY SCHEME
  Mr. Bossomasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many acres have been reserved for the poultry scheme in Gambia; and how many have so far been cleared.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Approximately 10,000 acres have been leased to the Colonial Development Corporation for this scheme, by agreement with the Gambia Government. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Corporation, who are carrying out the project.
  Mr. Bossom: Will the Minister state approximately how much land has been cleared, and whether it will produce the food that is required?
  Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir, I could not answer those questions without notice.

  WEST INDIES

    Food Supplies, Dominica
    Mr. Peter Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the shortage of milk and bread in Dominica; and what steps he is taking to improve the position.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Dominica has never produced all the fresh milk it needs, but imported dried and other milk products are readily available. Steps are being taken to improve the local livestock industry with a view to securing increased supplies of fresh milk. Owing to late arrivals, supplies of flour to bakers have at times been restricted, but they are now satisfactory.
    Mr. Smithers: In view of the fact that the Minister considers the position satisfactory can he give us the per capita consumption figures?
    Mr. Griffiths: No, not without notice.

    Timber
    Mr. John Grimstonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take to co-ordinate the listing of the suitabilities of timber likely to be available from the Caribbean area so that all trees cut can be put to their most economical use.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: A list of the timbers recommended for different uses was prepared before the war. The question of re-issuing it in an up-to-date form is under examination.
    Mr. Grimston: Will the right hon. Gentleman put a great deal of energy into this matter, because it is necessary for the proper development of the timber resources of this important area?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am trying to expedite the publication of the lists.

    Medical Officers
    Mr. Peter Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many medical practitioners were available to members of the public in Grenada at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Fifteen, Sir.
    Mr. Smithers: Is it not the case that several of these medical officers have gone away or have retired? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient remain?
    Mr. Griffiths: I would not say that I am satisfied there are sufficient. I will look into the question which the hon. Member has asked. Perhaps he will put another Question down.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Executive Council
    Mr. John Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, when making recommendations for the appointment or removal of unofficial members of the Executive Council, acts on the advice of all the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, including the two African unofficial members; on. what differences of opinion did Mr. J. Morris lose the confidence of more than two-thirds of the elected members of the
    1672
    Legislative Council; and whether the two African members are also known to have expressed lack of confidence in Mr. Morris.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The Governor, in making recommendations for the appointment of elected members to Executive Council, and their removal therefrom, takes the advice only of their elected colleagues on Legislative Council. The unofficial member who represents African interests in Executive Council is nominated by the Governor.
    As regards the second part of this Question, the major difference of opinion arose from the view which Mr. Morris took of his appointment to Executive Council. He regarded that appointment as a purely personal one and considered that in Executive Council he was not responsible to his elected colleagues on Legislative Council but to his constituents. Such a contention, if accepted, would have destroyed the value of the agreements arrived at between my predecessor and the unofficial members in 1948 and 1949 on their position in Executive Council. As Mr. Morris is an elected member, the last part of the Question does not arise.
    Mr. Hynd: Is it not the case that Mr. Morris was recommended for expulsion from the Council because he was the only member who voted against the resolution of the Northern Rhodesia Legislative Council in favour of central African federation? If the Governor is to take the advice only from the elected white members of this Executive Council it is not calculated to arouse confidence on the part of the African population.
    Mr. Griffiths: The differences are wider than that. This arrangement was entered into between my predecessor and the official members, and having studied the matter, I do not think I ought to disturb it.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this gentleman was censored because he sought to represent his constituents rather than the caucus? Is that the idea which is coming from the benches opposite?
    Mr. Griffiths: No; if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will study my answer he will see that that is not the correct interpretation to put on it.

    Kafue River (Dam)
    Mr. J. Grimstonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to start erection of a dam on the Kafue River in Northern Rhodesia for the large scale generation of electricity there.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: A decision whether or not to carry out this project, which cannot be considered separately from the Kariba Gorge project, must await the recommendations of the Commission referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in his reply to the hon. Member on 20th April.
    Mr. Grimston: Do I understand from that reply that the Commission are investigating both cases because I understood it was investigating the Kafue scheme only?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, but the investigation into the one will effect considerations regarding the other.
    Mr. Grimston: It certainly will, but the point of my Question was whether they are specifically required to investigate both schemes or only one.
    Mr. Griffiths: The position we have taken up is that we had better await the findings of the Commission and consider the matter in the light of their report.

  BRITISH TRUSTEESHIP, TERRITORIES (U.N.O. MISSION)
  Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many committees appointed by the United Nations have, in the last year, toured British Trusteeship Territories; and what nationalities were represented by the members of those committees.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: One, Sir. A trusteeship Council Mission visited Togoland and the Cameroons in 1949. Its four members were of Iraqi, Belgian, Mexican and United States nationality respectively.
  Mr. De Chair: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the United
  1674
  Nations Committee investigating the conditions in these territories did so at the invitation of His Majesty's Government, and whether it is not contrary to the terms of the Trustee Council's Charter to visit these places without the permission of His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Griffiths: That is a much wider question and I should have to have notice of it. The report has been published, and we are very glad to get it.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is it not a fact that an agreement is reached before a visit takes place, and could my right hon. Friend say whether any similar investigations are likely to take place in the coming 12 months?
  Mr. Griffiths: I should like notice of that,

  KENYA DISTURBANCES (INQUIRY)
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make upon the disturbances in North-West Kenya on 25th April when 20 tribesmen and three British citizens, A. J. Stevens, a district officer, G. M. Taylor, an assistant superintendent of police and R. G. Cameron, an assistant police inspector, were killed.
  Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the murder of three European police officers and one African police Askari iby Suk tribesmen; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement in respect of the recent disturbances in Kenya.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: A party of police, in the charge of administrative and police officers, went on 24th April to a remote place north of Lake Baringo, to investigate reports received from a missionary. They met a party of some 300 Suk tribesmen who had been raised by one Lucas Kipkech, an escaped convict and an adherent of a fanatical religious sect called the " Dini Ya Msambwa." While a parley was in progress the tribesmen attacked the police, who withheld their fire as long as possible, but were eventually forced

  1675
  to shoot. One administrator and two police officers were killed, one African policeman was killed and three wounded, though not seriously. Twenty-nine tribesmen were 1:11ed (including the leader), and approximately 50 were wounded. A strong force of police is now operating in the area, where, according to latest reports, the situation is in hand.
  There will be an official inquiry, the findings of which I do not wish to anticipate.
  I am sure the House will join with me in expressing its sympathy towards the relatives of the men who have been killed.
  Mr. Brockway: While joining in that expression of sympathy, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that this trouble has been brewing for a long time and that he will find a description of it in Negley Farsons' " Last Chance In Africa "? Can he say whether the causes are not deep rooted in social and economic injustices, and will he make the inquiry cover more than the immediate occurences for these deeper reasons?
  Mr. Griffiths: There will be an official inquiry into these very sad events, and when the report is before me I will consider whether any further action is needed. I would rather await that report
  Mr. Sorensen: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there was foreknowledge of this particular sect or group and, in particular, of the alleged fanatic who led them? Can he also say whether the impulse from this group radiated over a much wider field, and can he associate with his observations any recognition of those deeper factors to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) referred?
  Mr. Griffiths: I hope I carry the House with me when I say that I would rather await the official report and study it before considering what further action is necessary. I will bear all these points in mind.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While associating the Opposition with the sympathy expressed with the relatives of those who were killed, is it not also true that some at least of these so-called deeper factors have been introduced into Africa from
  1676
  outside by people with very little experience of the practical problems involved?
  Mr. G. B. Craddock: Would the Secretary of State agree that the contributing factor to this unrest, and not only to this but to other examples of it in that Colony, is that assistant district commissioners are not able to get round their districts because they are kept in their offices dealing with reams of paper work?
  Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir, I do not think that is true.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: What is the position in regard to the compensation for the relatives of those officers who died while in the execution of their duty?
  Mr. Griffiths: I should like to see that question on the paper.
  Mr. Alport: Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that the inquiry will be conducted as quickly as possible, in view of the concern which has been shown over this question?
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

  BRITISH HONDURAS (LAND SETTLEMENT)
  Mr. Peter Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far, in developing British Honduras, he proposes to give priority to settling in agricultural occupations those people who already live in the Colony.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: The British Honduras Government, as they have already announced, will give local people the first chance of jobs in new agricultural projects.

  TANGANYIKA (WAGES)
  Mr. W. T. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the wages paid to African labour on the sisal estates of Tanganyika; and how they compare with wages paid on the tobacco plantations of Southern Rhodesia.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Williams: Would the Minister agree that, roughly, the relation of the wages is that the tobacco planters of Southern Rhodesia pay almost twice as much as the current rate paid by the sisal growers of Tanganyika?
  Mr. Griffiths: I have given my hon. Friend very full figures, and perhaps he will study them first.
  Colonel Gonune-Duncan: Will the figures make very clear the difference in the cost of living in the two Colonies?
  Following is the reply:
  The wage rates vary considerably throughout both Tanganyika and Southern Rhodesia. The average rates of wages paid to indigenous employees on sisal estates in Tanganyika are:

  Occupation

  Average wages Shs.

  Unit of computation

  Average number of hours worked per week

  Cutters

  21/-;5/- bonus

  30 tasks to be completed in 42 days

  48-50

  Cleaners and weeders.

  15/-;2/50 bonus

  42-46

  Production

  21/-;5/- bonus

  42-46

  Rations are issued in addition; if rations are not issued wages are increased proportionately. It is usual for land and accommodation also to be provided. Exact figures for Southern Rhodesia are not available, but the wage rates are understood to be 40/- to 44/- a month, plus similar services in kind.
  In the absence of any common index of prices and costs of living, it is difficult to compare statistically real wage rates in the two territories.
  Mr. W. T. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the bulk purchase contracts arranged between Great Britain and the sisal growers of Tanganyika, there is any control of wage rates.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: The bulk purchase contract between Great Britain and the sisal growers of East Africa ended at the beginning of 1949. The question, therefore, does not arise.
  Mr. Williams: Would not my right.hon. Friend agree that there has, in fact, been no reduction in the prices paid for sisal? In those circumstances would it not be reasonable, since the British
  1678
  Government is the buyer of the sisal, that it should ask that some interest be taken in wage rate control in sisal?
  Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend makes, but the above contract, which has now ended, did not contain the arrangement which my hon. Friend suggests. That is a matter for the future.

  NIGERIA (RAILWAY STAFF TRANSFERS)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the house of the vice-president of the Railway Staff Union at Enugu, Nigeria, was searched in his absence; and why the vice-president and the secretary have both been transferred to Achopa station.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: The person referred to was president of the local branch of the Zikist movement, and his house was searched on 8th February at the same time as those of other members of the movement. The movement has since been declared an unlawful society. With regard to the second part of the Question, both persons were due for transfer in accordance with normal railway routine. The transfer of the vice-president was postponed in October, 1949, because of his union status; the union was at the same time informed that transfer was due. When the matter was raised again in April, he resigned from the railway rather than accept transfer. The secretary is also due for routine transfer, but it has been postponed because of his union status.
  Mr. Sorensen: Do I take it that the transfer has no penal association at all because of this man's alleged activities?
  Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir. I understand that the vice-president has been in his present post for four years, which is much longer than the normal period.

  MAURITIUS (OLD AGE PENSIONS SCHEME)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will recommend the measure of the Government of Mauritius to establish an old age pensions scheme to other Colonial Governments who have not introduced such a measure.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: The old age pensions scheme to which my hon. Friend refers is still under discussion by the Government of Mauritius. I will bear in mind the suggestion my hon. Friend has made.
  Mr. Rankin: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government of Mauritius upon what I hope will be the establishment of an old age pensions scheme?

  TRISTAN DA CUNHA (ADMINISTRATOR)
  Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the reason for now appointing an administrative officer to Tristan da Cunha; and what is the cost involved.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: A fishing company is establishing a fishing industry and a canning factory in Tristan da Cunha. In view of this, it was considered necessary to post an experienced officer to the Island to deal with any administrative problems that might arise and to assist the islanders in the changed conditions created by the establishment of the industry.
  The Administrator receives a salary of £1,200 a year. In addition, the cost of his passage was f116, and there will be further expenditure for his family's passages in due course, and for certain equipment, etc., of which no firm estimate can at present be given. The Administrator's salary and other expenses are payable from the revenue of the Island.
  Brigadier Head: Would not this have been a good job for the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food?
  Sir Ronald Ross: Is it not a good thing that there should be at least one tiny spot free from bureaucracy?

  ROYAL NAVY

    Dockyard, Bermuda (Closing)
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what repair facilities will remain at Bermuda when His Majesty's dockyard is closed down.
    Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a statement on the proposed closing of the dockyards in Bermuda; and where are our ships, formerly using these dockyards, to be serviced and repaired.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): On 22nd March, my hon. Friend informed the House that a delegation representing the Bermuda Government would shortly be visiting this country to discuss the question of closing the Bermuda Dockyard. The delegation reached London on 26th March and had discussions with the Prime Minister, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    After the fullest and frankest discussion with the delegation, His Majesty's Government decided with regret that in all the circumstances there was no economically justifiable alternative to the complete closure of Bermuda Dockyard. The Dockyard has become uneconomical in many ways, and, in view of the necessity for extreme administrative economies, its closure must be accepted if the fighting efficiency of the Fleet is to remain unimpaired and if our resources are to be deployed effectively for the defence of the Commonwealth and Empire as a whole.
    The composition and strength of the America and West Indies Squadron will not be affected by this decision, but in future the Squadron will be maintained by ships detached from the Home Fleet, whose refits and repairs will be carried out in the United Kingdom.
    The Squadron will continue to use Bermuda as its headquarters; and the Commander-in-Chief's residence, together with the necessary recreational facilties for the ships' companies, will be retained in Bermuda. In this way the traditional association of the Royal Navy with Bermuda will be preserved.
    Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that he has not answered the Question which I asked? Will he say whether the floating dock will still remain there?
    Mr. Edwards: No repair facilities will remain there.
    Squadron-Leader Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration

    1681
    the supplying of repair ships to that area, instead of using the obsolescent dockyards at Bermuda? Repair ships would be much more mobile and advantageous to modern conditions.
    Mr. Edwards: All that has been considered. We feel we can administer the station by repairs from the home yards far better than by having repair ships going out there.
    Captain Ryder: Has the Commonwealth been consulted in this matter?
    Mr. Edwards: That is another question.

    Pay and Allowances
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how much money he estimates will be spent in the current financial year on pay and allowances of Regular officers and other ranks in the Royal Navy, and how much on those of National Service men, respectively.
    Mr. W. Edwards: Approximately £39,580,000 and £1,020,000 respectively.

    Sea Cadets, Eastbourne
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the assistance already granted with regard to the provision of training and headquarter accommodation to the Army Cadet Force and the Air Training Corps in Eastbourne, his Department is now prepared to give financial help in these matters to the Sea Cadets in that town.
    Mr. W. Edwards: Unlike the Army Cadet Force and the Air Training Corps which are pre-service training organisations entirely controlled by the War Office and Air Ministry, the Sea Cadet Corps is a voluntary youth organisation jointly controlled by the Admiralty and the Navy League. The Admiralty is responsible for the professional training of the Corps and for limited financial assistance. The Eastbourne Unit has received help in respect of overhead expenses, stores for training purposes and uniforms. I am sorry that more cannot be done.
    Mr. Taylor: I appreciate the difference between the three cadet forces of the Services, but will the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be reasonable to expect the Admiralty to pay the rent for
    1682
    the accommodation which is so badly needed by the Sea Cadet Corps?
    Mr. Edwards: We cannot accept that. The Eastbourne unit is being treated in precisely the same way as other units in the country, which, somehow, manage to find the rent.
    Mr. Taylor: In view of the splendid work which the Cadet Force is doing, is it not time that the Admiralty agreed to pay all the accommodation charges for the Force?
    Mr. EdwardsNo, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: I beg to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory answer which I have received I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Requisitioned Property, Warsash (Restoration)
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how soon authority will be given for the restoration of the public hard at Warsash, Hampshire.
    Mr. W. Edwards: The Admiralty's responsibility in this matter is limited to the payment under Section 2 (1, b) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, of compensation for damage to the property whilst it was held on requisition, and this has been settled recently. The work of restoring the hard is a matter for the urban district council.

    Employee, Portsmouth (Redundancy)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why Mr. George Clasby, a welder, has been made redundant after 19 years' service.
    Mr. W. Edwards: Mr. Clasby has been employed by the Admiralty since 1932, but as a welder only since December, 1942. A state of redundancy arose recently amongst the welders at Portsmouth Yard and he was one of those who being the least efficient were selected for reversion to a lower grade, with the option of discharge on reduction, in accordance with the terms of the agreement made between the Admiralty and the trade unions.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister realise that, after 19 years' service, this man is one example—there are others—of men being given the option one week to revert to a lower grade and to be paid a lower wage or go out? That is not the way private enterprise would treat them.
    Mr. Edwards: I do not know whether private enterprise ought to come into this. I remember the day when, in the industry in which I was employed, people were paid off after four hours' work without getting a week's notice, but I think that is beside the point. The fact remains that this man has not been a welder during the whole of the time that he has been with us. He is classified as the least efficient, and, under the agreement with the trade unions, he has to go.
    Commander Noble: What warnings were given to this man that he was inefficient and might become redundant?
    Mr. Edwards: It is not a question of warnings. When redundancy arises we have to look at the whole body of men and see who is least efficient.
    Commander Noble: Was this man told beforehand that he was inefficient?
    Mr. Edwards: We have not said that he is inefficient. We have said that he is the least efficient.
    Brigadier Clarke: is the Minister aware that this man is now employed by private enterprise at a higher wage?

    Prize Money (Distribution)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how much of the prize money is still to be distributed; and the causes of its delay in its distribution.
    Mr. W. Edwards: Since 1st June last, 533,000 claims amounting to nearly £3 million have been paid out of the £4 million naval prize fund. Fewer than 50,000 claims, including nearly 20,000 from the next-of-kin of deceased officers and men which require special investigation, are at present in hand. I cannot agree that there has been any delay in distribution, but if the hon. Member will inform me of any specific cases which he has in mind I shall be glad to have them investigated.
    1684
    It is estimated that about 80,000 eligible persons have not yet made a claim. These should write to the Director of Navy Accounts, Branch 3B, at Bath, for the necessary application form. I wish to stress that the only persons who have not yet received prize money, but who may be entitled are former members of the Naval and Marine Forces, of the Maritime Regiment (Royal Artillery), and other former members of the crews of H.M. ships-of-war who performed 180 days' service at sea as defined in the Royal Proclamation, copies of which are exhibited at post office:. The next-ofkin of such qualified persons and of those who were killed in action or lost their lives at sea before completing 180 days' sea service are also entitled to claim.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: When relatives of deceased men make claims for prize money are their claims acknowledged by the Admiralty, or do they have to go on applying again and again?
    Mr. Edwards: I could not say whether they are acknowledged, but I do know that some people are continually writing and complaining because they do not get a reply every time they write. That helps to bring about a delay, if any delays at all are caused.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that they do not even get acknowledgements of their letters, and that I have a case before me now in which application has been made four times without any acknowledgement whatever that the letter has been received? Will he please look into that?
    Mr. Edwards: Yes, but despite all that I think it can be agreed by the House as a whole that the distribution has gone off very well indeed. I ask hon. Members themselves to discourage people from writing, because it does not help matters.
    Mrs. Middleton: Can my hon. Friend give the House any indication of the date by which these claims are likely to be settled? Hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly those representing naval ports, are getting considerable correspondence about it.
    Mr. Edwards: That does not arise out of this Question, but I am certain that if my hon. Friend will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT she will find that the hon. and

    1685
    gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) put down a Question to that effect which was answered recently.

    Officers (Discharges)
    Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many officers holding extended service commissions in the Royal Navy will be discharged this year; what is their average age and length of service; and whether they will be offered re-employment or training for another career.
    Mr. W. Edwards: Four hundred and fourteen, whose average age is 29½ years and average length of service as naval officers is about seven years. None of these officers can be offered further naval employment. Some may have rights under the release and resettlement arrangements to apply for help in training for a civil career, and some may avail themselves of the Business Training Scheme. Those who are pilots and interested in a civil pilot's career are being invited to apply to the Ministry of Civil Aviation for employment in that capacity.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of seeing whether arrangements can be made to assist any of these ex-officers towards serving with the Dominion or Colonial navies, or of assisting them to find employment in the only form of work they know, having been in the Navy ever since they left school?
    Mr. Edwards: I have no knowledge of any vacancies existing in Dominion navies, but I will certainly take up that point.

    Dockyard Staffs, Chatham and Sheerness
    Squadron-Leader Burdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what reduction in dockyard staffs at Chatham and Sheerness will follow completion of the proposed dockyard extensions at Portsmouth.
    Mr. W. Edwards: None, Sir.

    Monument, Ulverston (Flag)
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the Lords of the Admiralty will direct that the Union Jack be flown on the Sir John Barrow monument on Hoad Hill,
    1686
    near Ulverston, on the centenary on 15th May, 1950, as they did at the erection of the monument 100 years ago.
    Mr. W. Edwards: The Admiralty has presented a Union flag to be flown on this occasion.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will they send a small party to add to the ceremonial and to indicate their happy recollection?
    Mr. Edwards: The Question on the Order Paper deals only with the flag. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary.

  ARMED FORCES

    Defence Committees
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Defence the names of all the committees and sub-committees relating to defence at home and overseas on which his or Service Departments are represented; what is the purpose, size and constitution of each; how many members from the Departments mentioned are members of more than one, showing the number of committees served on; and what is the cost to the Exchequer of and total number of British persons involved in these committees and subcommittees.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shin-well): No, Sir.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman give some reason why the House should not be informed about what committees and sub-committees his Department is represented on concerning defence?
    Mr. Shinwell: Because I do not think it would serve any useful purpose.

    Deserters (Policy)
    Mr. Deedesasked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a further statement on the Government's future policy in regard to deserters.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Deedes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that before any statement is made all three Services will be in agreement?
    Mr. Shinwell: I could not be certain about that.

    Pay and Pensions
    Squadron-Leader Burdenasked the Minister of Defence if he will review the long-service pensions paid to men retiring from the Armed Forces in order to see whether an increase is possible.
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Minister of Defence whether a review of pay and allowances of officers and other ranks is now being carried out; who is conducting the necessary inquiries: and who is advising him.
    Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. and gallant Members to the statement I made in the course of the Defence Debate on 16th March, indicating that a comprehensive examination of life in the Services in all its aspects was now proceeding. I am sending a copy of the relevant paragraph to the hon. and gallant Members.
    Squadron-Leader Burden: Is the Minister aware that Question No. 50 bears no relation to Question No. 48 because the amounts allowed to men on retirement for long-service pension are looked upon as payment for long and faithful service, and not as a pension or as pay and allowances? Is he further aware that they are very distressed at the continual decline in the purchasing power of the £, although they are thankful that, factually, their rate of pay has been improved?
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will surely agree that the matter of pensions is very important in relation to life in the Service.
    Mr. Low: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the second and third parts of Question No. 50, to which I believe his answer purported to be a reply? Is he not aware that one of the reasons for putting down the Question was that I heard his reply in the Defence Debate and would be interested to know whether it is a Service inquiry, or whether people from civil life, or trade union representatives, or others are involved in the inquiry?
    Mr. Shinwell: If we conduct an inquiry of this sort there is no reason why we should furnish details of the personnel and the like.
    Mr. Low: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when certain inquiries have been carried out by the Air Ministry, for example, in the last three years, they have told the House what form the inquiry was taking, and were quite happy to do so?
    Mr. Shinwell: But I am not happy to do so.
    Brigadier Head: Will the Minister assure the House that this inquiry has on it representatives of the most important part of all, namely, commanding officers and their equivalent, who know of the hardships caused by low pay?
    Mr. Shinwell: We intend to have a comprehensive inquiry.
    Mr. Low: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Dependants Pensions Scheme
    Mr. Lowasked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a statement about the scheme for contributory pensions for widows and children, announced on 11th May, 1949.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on this subject on 29th March in reply to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. South (Mr. Bell).
    Mr. Low: Not being aware at this moment of the nature of that reply, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that this matter was raised in the House on Friday last when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War did not seem to be aware of that reply either? Would he not tell us what the result is?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to send him a copy of the reply to which I have referred, I will certainly do so, but, as he will agree, this is a very complicated matter. We have to make very careful inquiries. We must be certain, too, that the Services will respond to any proposal we make to them.
    Mr. Low: Ought these inquiries not to have been made before the original announcement was made, over a year ago? Is it not about time something was done?
    Mr. Shinwell: I agree that it is probably time something was done, but before we do anything we must see that what we are doing is worth while.
    Mr. Low: We shall have an Adjournment Debate on that, too.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Points Goods
    Miss Irene Wardasked the Minister of Food if he will list the points foods which under the latest system holders of single ration books cannot obtain.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): There are no such foods, although of course the larger tins of certain foods cost more than 16 points.
    Miss Ward: Will the Minister bear in mind that the new arrangement treats the holders of single ration books very badly indeed?
    Mr. Webb: This is one of the problems we thought would arise and at the end of a month's experience of the new scheme I promised to undertake a review of all these considerations. That is certainly one which will have to be examined.
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that as a result of the reduction to 16 of the points allowance per person great hardship is being placed on those persons who desire to purchase syrup at 14 points per 2 lb. tin to supplement their sugar ration for cooking purposes; and if he will consider either reducing the points value of syrup or increasing the points allowance.
    Mr. Webb: Yes, Sir. I am fully aware of this problem. It was in my mind when I stated that the restricted points scheme would cause problems, both for traders and housewives. We are compelled to make the number of points available equal to the total points value of the goods in the shops. If we did not do so, there would be even greater injustice, and certainly much greater complaint. However, this is one of the matters I will take into account when I make the comprehensive review of the points scheme which I promised to make after about a month's experience of the revised scheme.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, even with the best intentions
    1690
    in the world, instead of giving some concessions he has, in fact, taken away from the smaller families? The outlay of 12 points for a pound of biscuits or 16 for a pound of currants means that no points are left for the remainder of the month? Something must be done very quickly to give these people a chance of buying points goods.

    Milk Consumption
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Food the present annual rate of milk consumption by private purchasers; the rate when milk was rationed; the annual rate of subsidy on the amount of milk being sold in excess of the ration level; and why a subsidy on this portion of the milk supply is necessary.
    Mr. Webb: We estimate that 1,015 million gallons will be consumed this year by private purchasers, apart, of course, from the Welfare Scheme. The corresponding figure for last year, when for a great part of the year the non-priority allowance varied between two and three pints a week, was about 980 million gallons. It would not be practicable to have a scheme for selling a fixed allowance to all consumers at a subsidised price and any balance at a higher price.
    Major Lloyd: Would the Minister tell us why those who drink very little milk should be compelled to pay a subvention for those who are now at liberty to drink a very great deal of milk? Is that called equal shares for all, fair shares for all, social justice, or what?
    Mr. Webb: That is one of the problems of life that requires very careful examination.

    Canteen, Portman Court
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food what profit or loss was made by the canteen at his office in Portman Square in each year before it was handed over to private enterprise.
    Mr. Webb: This refreshment club, which was a staff organisation managed by its members, was closed down in 1949, when another canteen became available in the neighbourhood. I understand that during the nine years of its operation the canteen made a profit overall; with permission I will circulate the figures year by year in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Keeling: As the canteen was handed over to private enterprise in spite of having made a profit, may we take it that the rent obtained from private enterprise exceeded the profit?
    Mr. Webb: I should have thought that the management of a club by its members was in itself an act of private enterprise. It was their own club; they managed it at a profit. I cannot say without notice whether the rent of the building was taken into account.
    Following is the statement:
    The profit or loss made by the canteen in Portman Court in each year before it was closed was as follows:

    £

    1942 (Profit)

    …

    …

    95

    1943 (Profit)

    …

    …

    476

    1944 (Profit)

    …

    …

    626

    1945 (Profit)

    …

    …

    248

    1946 (Profit)

    …

    …

    618

    1947 (Profit)

    …

    …

    554

    1948 (Loss)

    …

    …

    1,858

    1949 (Loss)

    …

    …

    423

    Special Cheese Ration
    Mr. Vaughan-Morganasked the Minister of Food whether he will extend the entitlement to the extra cheese ration now allowed to agricultural workers to cover those employers who also do manual farm work.
    Mr. Webb: No, Sir. Working farmers can usually get home or make other arrangements for a meal during working hours.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has misrepresented-1 feel sure, unintentionally—the situation, because if these men are working out in the fields with their employees it is no easier for them to get home than it is for their employees? Therefore, why should they not have the same ration?
    Mr. Webb: We just cannot go on extending these extra classes of entitlement to rationed foods, and I am satisfied on the whole that the system which we are now working is the best possible system.
    Mr. David Renton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his system means that if an agricultural worker wishes to ascend the ladder by becoming a smallholder and his own master, he will
    1692
    get less to eat? is this not a serious discouragement to the Government's policy of encouraging agricultural smallholdings?
    Mr. Webb: If a man is worried about it he will not ascend the ladder.
    Captain Crookshank: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that it is the policy of his colleague the Minister of Agriculture to encourage people to do that by the smallholdings movement?

    Snoek
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Food how many cases of snoek have been resold abroad; to what countries; and, on average, what profit or loss per case has been made.
    Mr. Webb: None has been sold abroad by my Department, but I understand that private traders have sold some to Israel. I have no knowledge of the profit or loss made.
    Mr. Osborne: is the Minister aware that in the trade it is believed that this snoek was bought by his predecessor for 65s. a case and re-sold at about 25s. a case, and can he say upon whom this loss has fallen?
    Mr. Webb: The figures are very wide of the mark.

    Posters
    Mr. H. A. Priceasked the Minister of Food how much did his Department pay to the Bureau of Current Affairs for posters distributed to food offices during the years 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949.
    Mr. Webb: The sum of £975 was paid in 1947 for 1,300 sets of the Map Review at the special price of 15s. per set of 26 issues. No other payments have been made.

    Local Authorities (Bylaws)
    Miss Baconasked the Minister of Food how many local authorities have adopted Model Bylaws, Series 1, circulated by his Department to local authorities on 27th October, 1949, concerning the handling, wrapping and delivery of food and sale of food in the open air.
    Mr. Webb: There has been a very good response. About 850 local authorities have taken preliminary action, 365 have adopted bylaws based on our model, and a further 149 have had their bylaws confirmed.

    Ration Book Issue, Littlemore
    Mr. John Hayasked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied with the arrangements made for the issue of ration books at Littlemore, Oxfordshire; and what was the reason for the delay in commencing the issue on 17th April.
    Mr. Webb: Yes, Sir. The arrangements are very similar to those which operated satisfactorily last time. I am assured that the distribution centre was opened at the advertised time.
    Mr. Hay: Is the Minister aware that the advertised time was half an hour later than had previously been stated, and that people were kept waiting there half an hour in the pouring rain?
    Mr. Webb: On the question of the opening, that is contrary to my advice. On the general fact of the waiting time, I am advised that it was less than half an hour at any time during the day.

    Restaurant Meals (Charge)
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Food whether he can now make any statement about the relaxation of present restrictions on the permitted charge for meals in restaurants.
    Mr. Webb: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis) on 1st May.
    Sir I. Fraser: To give some help to the smaller establishments by this new freedom, will the right hon. Gentleman see if he can increase the rations which they are allowed to have—[HoN. MEMBERS: " No."]—and, in particular, allow them to buy rations, such as eggs, that are not needed locally?
    Mr. Webb: I cannot enter into any undertaking on that point.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: Can the Minister say whether the staff of his Department who were responsible for maintaining this restriction are now being retained?
    Mr. Webb: That is another question.
    Mr. Poole: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that up to the moment this new freedom seems to have achieved only the result of a much higher price for the same meal?

    Meat (Subsidy)
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Minister of Food by how much per lb. butcher meat is subsidised; what is the total cost of the subsidy; and how does he ensure that the housewife receives the full value of the subsidy in her purchase of butcher meat.
    Mr. Webb: The subsidy on carcase meat is about 21d. a lb. on the average. The total subsidy for the present financial year is estimated at £36 million. We secure the transfer of the subsidy to the consumer by controlling the prices at which the butcher both buys and sells his meat. Butchers are required to display lists of permitted prices openly in their shops, and I should be glad to investigate any evidence which the hon. Lady might give me of cases where this is not done.
    Mrs. Mann: The control of prices is unknown to the housewives—they have no means of checking whether they are getting the subsidy or not. Would my right hon. Friend secure the return of the price tickets to the counters of the butchers' shops, because at present housewives are not getting the subsidy?
    Mr. Webb: I have already asked my hon. Friend to come to my Department and discuss the details of her Question with my officers, and I should be very glad if she would accept that invitation.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the Minister aware that last Sunday the hon. Member for Orpington had a piece of meat which he could not eat because it was so tough, and that the butcher said he was sorry; and is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that in the old days, if a person did not get satisfactory meat from one butcher, he could change his butcher, whereas now we have to have what is sent us?
    Mr. Webb: I am very sorry; I hope that the meat which the hon. Member had was not " red " meat.
    Mr. Hastings: What precautions are taken to see that butchers exhibit price lists in their shops, because many people have never seen them?

    Vegetables (Price)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that onions and other vegetables have increased greatly in price since decontrol; and if he will take steps to bring down these prices by reimposing controls, if necessary.
    Mr. Webb: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) and Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) on 1st May.
    Mrs. Mann: That reply has absolutely nothing to do with the case. If I may recall it, it did not state that control or decontrol had really influenced the prices. The Question was different, because it had regard to today's high prices for vegetables. I would like to inform—[HoN. MEMBERS: " No, ask.1 May I ask the Minister if he is aware that when carrots were decontrolled on Monday, the price in Glasgow rose from 2-/cl. to 91c1. per lb. and if he is aware that decontrol [HON. MEMBERS: " Speech."] Hon. Members opposite are trying to shout me down because they do not like it. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the price of onions has risen from 4d. to 8d. and remained at 8d. all during the winter months just because of decontrol?
    Mr. Webb: The answer is " Yes, Sir."
    Mr. York: Is the Minister aware that the reason for the shortage, or higher price, of onions is mainly because of the failure of the Government to protect British growers last season?
    Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why vegetables are so dear at the moment is that the present arrangements for their marketing and distribution are so unsatisfactory? Will he give careful consideration to the proposals made by the Lucas Committee for improving those prices?

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (UNITED KINGDOM REPRESENTATION)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I desire, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, to make a statement.
The House will be aware that it is desirable to announce as early as possible the names of the United Kingdom representatives to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe for the next Session, which is to be held at Strasbourg in August. His Majesty's Government have given consideration to the British representation, having regard to the balance of parties in this House, and they are of the view, which I believe is shared by the official Opposition and the Liberal Party, that it will be appropriate for the 18 representatives to consist of nine Members of the Labour Party, eight of the Conservative Party and one of the Liberal Party.
I should now like to announce the names of the members. The representatives from the Government benches are:
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton), my hon. Friend the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan), my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon), Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), Reading, North (Mr. R. Mackay) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
The representatives of His Majesty's Opposition are:
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) and Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross).

1697
The representative of the Liberals will be:
The noble Lord, Lord Layton.
These appointments are for the Second Session of the Assembly and will hold good until either the beginning of the Third Session, or the election of the next United Kingdom Parliament, whichever is the earlier.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION
  PETROL RATIONING
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 19th May, I shall call attention to the present position in regard to petrol rationing, and move a resolution.
  HOUSING
  Mr. Redmayne: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 19th May, I shall call attention to the special housing problems of densely populated towns and cities, and move a resolution.
  COAL (PRICE)
  Sir John Mellor: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 19th May, I shall call attention to the effects of high prices of coal on industrial costs, and move a resolution.
  ORDERS OF THE DAY

    HIGH COURT AND COUNTY COURT JUDGES BILL [Lords']
    Order for Second Reading read.
    3.35 p.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, " That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    This is a modest and I apprehend, an entirely non-controversial, but, I think, an important Bill. It makes provision for the possible appointment of up to six additional judges in the High Court and up to five additional judges in the county courts. It is, no doubt in some ways a serious matter to increase the number of judges, but I make no apology at all for the present Bill, unless it be to anyone who thinks that its provisions are perhaps a little overdue. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the proper administration of justice in the civil courts and in the criminal courts now necessitates an increase in judicial strength.
    There are three propositions which I think everybody, on both sides of the House, will agree are axiomatic in our administration of justice; first, that justice should not be delayed or tarried to any man; secondly, that, on the other hand, when cases have at last come to be tried they should not be tried with any sense or feeling of pressure or lack of time; thirdly, the proposition to which I personally and, I think, at least the whole of the legal profession attach importance, that judges' work ought to be done by judges and not by substitutes who, however good they may be, and usually are, do not seem to litigants to occupy the same status as His Majesty's judges and sometimes appear to litigants to be administering a kind of second-class justice which, of course, does not exist in our system.
    Unfortunately, in these years since the war our judicial machine has been unable to comply with these elementary requirements and the time has now come to enable the Bench to be strengthened so that our judicial system, of which we are rightly proud, may again be able to work to maximum efficiency. In commending this proposal to the House, I do not want it to be thought that the required increase in the number of judges

    1699
    necessarily shows that the nation is becoming less law-abiding, more litigious, or more criminal.
    There has certainly been a serious increase in crime, and there is no room for complacency about that. But the plain fact is that the nation is also becoming more numerous. In 1871 there were 18 judges in the three Common Law Courts which are now united together in the King's Bench Division of the High Court. These are the judges who deal with the criminal cases and the generality of the civil work. Today there are only 20. In 1871 there were 60 county court judges; there are 60 today. But in 1871 the population of the country was 22 million and today it is 43i million. It would not be surprising or altogether a ground for dismay that a few additional judges might well be required in order adequately to conduct the judicial business of the country.
    On the other hand, it is true that in more recent years the number of cases to be tried has greatly increased. That is true not only on the criminal side but on the civil side as well. I do not know the reasons or whether it would be use- ful to canvass them. The growing complexity of modern life; the fates and chances resulting from greater mechanisation in industry; the greater use of motor vehicles; because a very large proportion of these actions in the courts are actions for damages for negligence; a greater awareness of legal rights and perhaps a greater ability to take advantage of legal rights —all these things, and I imagine many others as well, have tended to increase considerably the volume of civil litigation.
    On the first day of the Easter Term in 1937 there were 655 cases set down in the King's Bench Division for trial. The number dropped during the war. It has since risen; in 1948 there were 1,000, and this year there were at the beginning of this term 1,215 cases, an increase of about double compared with 1937. On the criminal side the position is of course one in which the serious increase gives rise to important social implications. In 1938, there were 2,700 cases tried on indictment, that is either at the Old Bailey or at the various assize towns. In 1948 the number of indictable cases had risen to 4,678.
    1700
    In 1938 the judges occupied 692 days in trying criminal cases on circuit. In 1949 they occupied 1,019 days, and in the same period there was an increase of —if I may use the expression-183 judge days in the Court of Criminal Appeal. I agree that it is an objectionable phrase but it is one which has high authority.
    Mr. John Foster: Is a " judge day " a day of five hours or does it include days on which a judge may sit for nine hours?
    The Attorney-General: It means days.
    Mr. Foster: It does not take into account any extra length of a sitting?
    The Attorney-General: No. I shall later refer to the extra length of sittings, which is a very serious consideration. The Court of Criminal Appeal is now sitting almost continuously. Again, today—I have just come from there— they have a Divisional Court of five judges. That will sit again tomorrow, I think, and for the rest of the week they have been sitting as the ordinary court of three judges. When the judges are on circuit and the Court of Criminal Appeal or the Divisional Court are sitting, either with three judges or the full court of five, it means that there are very few judges left to do the civil work in London.
    On the civil side there is no reason to think, and some lawyers will possibly take the view that there is no occasion to hope, that litigation is likely to diminish. On the criminal side, on the other hand, I have expressed a hope that there is good reason to expect that the figures have passed their peak, and that the amount of criminal work which will fall upon the judges may be expected to diminish. I am certainly not suggesting that one of the ways of preventing crime is to appoint more judges; they deal with the end result. The place to prevent crime is in the schools, the homes and youth organisations. But the extent of crime at present has undoubtedly imposed a heavy burden on the judges which has prevented them from carrying out to the full their functions on the civil side.
    Any diminution there may be, and which we hope there will be, in the amount of criminal work at the Old Bailey and the assizes, is certainly likely to be counterbalanced by increases in civil litigation. which, having dropped

    1701
    right down during the war, is now steadily building up again to much higher figures. For instance, the number of long non- jury cases which were set down at the beginning of the Easter Term in 1948 was only 168, but this term the figure has increased to 707, which is a most astonishing increase. One would expect that when the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act come into operation in October this year this tendency towards an increase in civil litigation, certainly in the Divorce Court and probably in the ordinary civil courts of the High Court, will continue.
    That situation has had a number of unfortunate results. There has in the first place been a much greater time lag between the setting down of cases for trial and their coming on for actual trial before the court. In 1946, when imme- diately after the war the civil lists were light, there was a lapse of only about six weeks on the average between a case being set down in London and actually being tried. The period between setting down and trial is now sometimes as long as eight or nine months. On circuit, on the other hand—a great deal of the civil work is now conducted in the various assize towns—the position is often that too many, some would say, far too many, cases are included in the daily list, with the result that litigants are induced to settle cases which ought really to have been fought. They are induced for one reason or another, either because the cases are put in sooner than they expected, or because they cannot afford to wait day after day until their case comes on to be heard, or for other reasons arising from the overcrowding of the list.
    Another consequence, an unfortunate one, is that judges and juries in the various assize towns are having to sit late, too late. They often have to sit until seven or eight o'clock at night, and sometimes even later. That is a practice which is really most inimical to justice, but which on the other hand cannot be avoided under our existing arrangements if the courts are to get through the work. I shall have something more to say shortly about this question of sitting late, but I think there is general agreement in the House that there is a limit of time beyond which it is not wise for courts to sit or for litigants, witnesses or counsel to be put to the strain of being constantly on the alert in the conduct of their cases.
    1702
    Moreover—and this is another matter on which on other occasions as head of the Bar and in an independent position I have expressed a strong view it has been necessary for the Lord Chancellor as a regular expedient to appoint commissioners of assize to travel the various circuits and take cases which in normal conditions would be taken by the judges themselves. The House will be aware that it has very long been the practice in exceptional cases, where something unexpected has happened—perhaps the judge has become ill or something of the sort or where there is an emergency of one kind or another—to appoint one of the " silks " travelling the circuit to sit as a commissioner for a day or two in order to deal with an emergency situation.
    But the practice which has had to be followed in these last few years—and the Lord Chancellor had no alternative with regard to it—has been to appoint commissioners as a matter of regular course. Last year the Lord Chancellor had to appoint 15 commissioners, who sat on no less than 283 days. These gentlemen, not I think usually practising members of the English Bar, have been good enough to discharge this important public duty, and I do not want it to be thought that in any comment I am making about the practice I am making the least criticism of the way in which commissioners have discharged their duties. On the contrary, we are most grateful to them for the assistance which they have given in the administration of justice.
    The point is and this is the serious and substantial point as I see it—that they have been doing judge's work and that judge's work ought to be done by judges. There is a wide-spread, strong and, I think, a justifiable objection, both in the legal profession and amongst litigants to a system which, as a regular thing, results in cases being dealt with by commissioners instead of by judges.
    Rather a similar situation has arisen in the county courts. In 1949 the number of county court judges was the same as it was in 1871 when our population was about half what it is now and it has fluctuated very little in the period in between. In 1949 the county court judges found themselves considerably overburdened with work. The result was that deputy county court judges had to be appointed to sit on 133 occasions

    1703
    to relieve the congestion. That is the number of occasions on which they sat; not because a judge was ill or there was some special emergency of that kind—those cases are to be counted in addition—but on 133 occasions a deputy had to be appointed in order to try to relieve the lists.
    The congestion in the county courts is very well illustrated by the fact that in 1949, 1,335 cases had to be adjourned for want of time, compared with only 127 cases in 1946. That seems to me to be an intolerable position from the point of view of litigants, and I will say a word or two more about that in another connection when we come to consider the number of judges now required.
    As the House will be aware, not only are the county court judges at present over burdened, but the committee which is inquiring into the organisation of courts under Lord Justice Evershed—I forget the exact title, the Evershed Committee as it is generally known—
    Mr. Manningham-Buller (Northants, South): It is the Committee on Supreme Court Practice and Procedure.
    The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. That committee has recommended that there should be substantial increases in the jurisdiction of county courts. They have suggested, moreover, other alterations in practice and procedure which will tend to increase the use of the county court to the relief of the High Court. It seems to me a most desirable thing that when opportunity affords in Parliament so far as legislation is necessary that should be done.
    The county court is a most important court. It is the people's court in the best and the good sense of that word. It is a court—and I am using the word in that sense and not in any other sense—presided over by one of His Majesty's Judges, but it is a court which is readily accessible to the people; which is reasonably informal in its procedure; in which it is not essential, although no doubt desirable, to employ lawyers, and in which the costs are really not great. It is a court presided over by shrewd and kindly men, who get to know the habits and the social circumstances of the areas
    1704
    within their jurisdiction; and who administer justice, not from great Olympian heights, but in close contact with the people with whose cases they are dealing. I regard it as a most important court. and anything that can be done to improve its practice and procedure and to simplify and make it more readily available is, I think, good.
    In the result, we think it necessary to ask for power to appoint a maximum of six additional judges in the High Court; two of them will certainly be required immediately. Indeed, expressing my own personal view, I do not think we shall be able to cope satisfactorily with the existing situation until four new appointments have been made. No doubt there will normally have to be three judges going the Northern Circuit. There is a great deal of heavy work on that circuit which means one additional judge going on that circuit in place of a commissioner. On parts at any rate of the North-Eastern circuit an additional judge will be required, and if four are now appointed that will leave two extra. Sometimes they may be in London, where, as I have said, the strength is very low, especially when the Court of Criminal appeal or the Divisional Court is sitting, and sometimes they may lend a hand elsewhere—in any circuit town where the list happens to be particularly heavy.
    Some day, and I hope myself that it will not be too far distant, this House will have to consider, if it is a matter for legislation—I am not sure that it is, perhaps I should have said we shall have to consider—whether it is possible to implement the recommendations which the Evershed Committee have already made, of having a system of fixed dates for trials. I do not think it should baffle the ingenuity of man, certainly not of lawyers, to establish some system which makes it possible to fix dates some time in advance; so that litigants, witnesses, and counsel can make their plans accordingly. But that does require a margin of additional manpower.
    Hitherto, we have always proceeded on the assumption that the one important thing in our judicial arrangements was that the time of the judge must be fully occupied; that nothing must be allowed to occur which enabled the judge to rise before four o'clock in the afternoon. The result has been that cases have been brought into the list, often at short notice,

    1705
    and have been kept in the list for several days before they have been reached in order to guard against the risk that a judge may not be fully occupied; because earlier cases turned out to be shorter than was expected, or because they were settled.
    An illustration of that is the 1,300-odd adjournments for want of time in the county courts. I have no comparable figures for the High Court, but every practising lawyer and most litigants are familiar with the fact that often cases are put in the list two, three and sometimes four days before they actually come to be reached; and every practising lawyer and most litigants know the frustration and expense of having their cases put in the list a considerable time before the court is really ready to try them.
    That seems to me to be a position which is really quite intolerable in existing circumstances. It should be possible, as a general rule, for cases to be tried on the day when they are listed. If, in the result, judges occasionally find that, owing to cases being settled or cases taking less time than they were expected to take, they are able to rise at mid-day, then we must rejoice with them in the possibility of their going off to play a game of golf, or, if I may be so vulgar, going to the pictures, or even perhaps occasionally reading the decisions of their learned brethren.
    The cost to the Treasury of making the necessary appointments to enable the system of fixed days to be operated, as I hope it will be, will, I think, be quite insignificant in comparison with the time and money which will be saved, and which litigation now involves to the actual liti- gants who are brought to court before their cases are ready to be tried because there are other cases in front of them in the list. When that system comes into operation, it will certainly be necessary to appoint the two additional judges for which this total of a maximum of six provides. That is why, although we may only appoint two, or probably four, at the moment, we seek power to have six so that we can make the additional appoint- ments contemporaneously with bringing into operation a scheme for fixed dates for trial, at any rate in London.
    In the county court we are asking for only five additional judges. Two more will be required immediately to deal with
    1706
    the situation in London, and the possible three others may be needed to add to the strength in different parts of the provinces. The Lord Chancelor will certainly only make the appointments if it is clear that they are needed, but I have explained to the House that the congestion in the county courts is already considerable and there is the prospect of increasing jurisdiction.
    It is suggested sometimes that the problem of congestion in the courts could be solved by working longer hours and having shorter vacations. In fact, the vacations have been shortened and the judges are, every day, sitting for much longer hours. We ought to be grateful to them for that. Although their salaries have remained the same for 100 years, and are now quite out of conformity with what is sometimes called the salaries structure of the country and certainly ill-reflect the status and independence of the judicial office, none the less the judges have cooperated fully in doing their utmost to cope with the vastly increased volume of work.
    Although I express my personal view as to their salaries, I am not suggesting, of course, that they could be raised at this moment. This is a time demanding great sacrifice and restraint from everybody, as I know His Majesty's judges appreciate. When things get easier, there are others—the railwayman with £4 10s. a week, the teacher who is paid less than the policeman, and people in that condition—who may be entitled to prior consideration. But the fact is that their salaries have remained what they are for a very long time indeed. We ought to be grateful to the judges, as I am sure we are, and it is right that we should express our gratitude, for the fact that they have made great efforts to enable the existing judicial machine to work smoothly, in spite of the fact that it has been most heavily overloaded in the past few years. In doing that, they have maintained the high reputation of our courts.
    The solution is certainly not longer hours. I think everybody who has considered this matter—and it has been carefully considered before the Evershed Committee—has agreed that a sitting of four-and-a-half to five hours is as much as any judge, litigant, witness or counsel can stand if justice itself is not to suffer. The

    1707
    strain of four or five hours of being constantly on the alert, listening, if one is a judge, quietly and without too much interruption, to what is going on and taking it all in, is really a very considerable mental strain. It is also a strain for witnesses, litigants and counsel.
    Mr. Scholefield Allen: And for juries.
    The Attorney-General: And certainly for juries who have to sit there without even the occasional relaxation of being able to interrupt the proceedings by putting a question or a point to counsel. Juries sit under very great strain when, sometimes up to seven or eight o'clock at night, they are trying difficult cases. That seems to me a system which is inconsistent with proper trial and the due administration of justice. Longer hours is not the solution.
    On the other hand, I do not think that the solution is even shorter vacations. The legal profession certainly, particularly the solicitors' branch of it, is opposed to the idea that the vacations should be reduced. I want to dispel in a sentence the popular impression which possibly exists that during the legal vacation members of the legal profession all go away to the South of France on holiday. Litigation in the courts is not the only work which has to be done by members of the legal profession. The vacation, at any rate for the solicitors' branch, provides the time when non-litigious business can be undertaken and litigious work can be prepared.
    There is no doubt that the only solution is the one that we have proposed, involving a modest but reasonable increase in judicial strength. Accordingly, I commend this Bill to the House. Its passage and implementation will do much to make the law the better to serve the citizen, which is its proper function in a civilised society.
    4.7 p.m.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller (Northants, South): In order to relieve the Chief Patronage Secretary from that anxiety which perpetually afflicts him in this Parliament, may I say straight away that we welcome this Bill and, of course, shall not divide against it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General has made out a very strong case for more High Court judges. That case has existed
    1708
    for a considerable time. We are glad that this Bill has now been introduced. I do not think it is putting it too high to say that in recent years the administration of justice could scarcely have been carried on satisfactorily without the great assistance given by commissioners, both those trying divorce cases and commissioners of assize.
    I agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the regular practice of employing commissioners. It is wrong and, while the individual commissioners are deserving of thanks and gratitude for what they have done to help in this situation, and while I do not wish any words of mine to imply any criticism of those who have acted, I must say that I hope that one consequence of this Measure will be that the regular practice of the appointment of commissioners will soon—very soon—cease.
    I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that persons who have their cases entered for the High Court, whether they are divorce cases or other kinds of cases, and who find them being tried by a commissioner and not by a High Court judge, get the impression of obtaining second-class justice. Of course, I do not think that they do, but that is their impression. It is an impression which, perhaps, is sometimes enhanced by the amenities of the particular court in which the commissioners function. Perhaps " bargain basement " justice would be a more accurate description in some cases.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Except that it costs just as much.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: That impression, with which they leave the court, is speedily corrected when they get the bill of costs from the solicitor.
    Mr. Silverman: That includes counsel's costs, too.
    Mr. Mamtingham-Buller: Those observations of mine, which I made primarily regarding commissioners sitting in London, equally apply with regard to commissioners of assize, and I think that it is particularly unfortunate when we have a commissioner of assize who is trying serious indictable offences. I think a visit from a " red judge " has a deterrent effect which the visit of a commissioner of assize does not have, and I hope that, in these times, great attention will be paid

    1709
    to the avoidance of the appointment of commissioners of assize wherever possible.
    After all, if a commissioner is good enough to do the work of a judge, he should be appointed a judge, and, if he is not good enough to do the work of a judge, he certainly should not be appointed a commissioner. Indeed, I would say that the only case which really exists for the appointment of commissioners is that where there is, say, a sudden illness on circuit of a judge of assize, or where someone is being tried out with a view to his appointment as a judge. As a regular practice, I think it is most regrettable, but it has had to be adopted, as the learned Attorney-General has indicated, for a considerable period in the last few years.
    I must say that there was one part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman which caused me some anxiety. This Bill takes power to create six more High Court judges. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made out a very strong case for this Bill, but then indicated that the present intention was to appoint only two more High Court judges. I say quite frankly that I do not think that that will be a large enough number to alleviate the situation. I do not believe that it will be a large enough number to avoid the necessity of sending commissioners regularly on assize. I do not believe it will be a large enough number to avoid the necessity of the appointment of commissioners to try defended divorce cases, and I hope that the time may soon come when defended divorce cases cease to be tried by commissioners. I note that the Lord Chief Justice has expressed the view—
    Mr. Scholefield Allen: When making that remark, does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to include county court judges who are acting as commissioners trying divorce cases?
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: No, I do not. There are others who are not county court judges but who are trying defended divorce cases. I do not wish to make any personal criticism, but I think it is quite wrong that they should sit day after day trying defended divorce cases of great importance to the litigants concerned.
    The Lord Chief Justice has expressed the view that the smallest number which
    1710
    would meet the requirements of the situation at the present time is four, and I see from the Interim Report of the Committee on Supreme Court Practice and Procedure that it is stated that three extra judges are required in London, and three more on circuit, making a total of six. Then the Committee go on to say that—
    " the equivalent of two judges would be secured by the adoption of our recommendation for shortening the vacations and increasing the hours of work in London."
    Both these recommendations have been adopted. The courts now sit later in the afternoon, to the greater inconvenience of those who have to come from the courts to this House, which is unavoidable, and the long vacation has been shortened. Therefore, one finds that the Lord Chief Justice is saying that four judges are required now, it is also the considered view of the Evershed Committee; and I certainly express my view, for what it is worth, that nothing fewer than four will achieve the object stated by the learned Attorney-General, which has met with support from both sides of this House. Indeed, my doubt is whether four will be really sufficient at the present time. I think that four more judges would enable us to avoid the appointment as a regular practice of commissioners, but I doubt very much whether it would give us one spare judge—I nearly used the phrase " judge power," following the bad example set by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I avoided it —which will be required if this programme is to be started and any progress made with it.
    It is of vital importance that steps should be taken to implement the recommendations of the Evershed Committee with regard to fixing dates for trials. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that subject, and I would draw attention to the view expressed by the Joint Committee of the Bar Council and the Law Society on that subject. They said that no single step would be likely to achieve greater results in reducing the cost of litigation, and I entirely agree with them. My feeling is that, if the powers given by this Bill are used only to create two more judges, it really means that more time will have to elapse before progress is made with regard to fixing the dates of trials.

    1711
    In this connection, one must have regard to one further fact, which I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentle- man mentioned, and that is the practice —I am not sure that it is not a growing practice—of asking the judges to take on extra judicial duties, either as chairmen of tribunals or committees, duties which occupy a great deal of their time and which sometimes mean that they are un- able to sit in court on particular days. In considering whether two or more appointments should be made, that ought to be taken into account.
    This Bill is concerned only with the numbers of judges, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman made some observa- tions with regard to the salaries of His Majesty's judges. I agree with what he said in drawing attention to their in- adequacy, but I do not think that the Second Reading of this Bill is the right time to debate that subject, and I there- fore propose to reserve my observations upon the inadequacy of judges' remunera- tion to a future occasion. I do assert, however, that a strong case for the revi- sion of their remuneration now exists, and I think the same applies in perhaps a lesser degree to county court judges. The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that the maximum number of county court judges now is precisely what it was in 1871, when the population of the country was half what it is today. Again, I think the practice of regular appoint- ments of deputies to the county court judges is to be deplored. I am a little intrigued to know why the maximum number of the increase in county court judges was limited to five, while that for High Court judges was put at six, but I really would not press that minor point.
    I believe that the appointment of more judges, both in the High Court and in the county courts, should mean a speeding- up of the hearing of cases, to the great advantage of the administration of justice and to the benefit of all who have the misfortune to have to bring matters before the courts of our country. For these reasons, I welcome the Bill.
    4.19 p.m.
    Mr. Scholefield Allen: I have little knowledge of the situation in regard to the Chancery Division or of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, but I have some knowledge of how things
    1712
    are proceeding in the King's Bench Division, and particularly with regard to the administration of justice on circuit, more especially on the Northern Circuit. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has rightly said, it is of supreme importance that justice should not be long delayed. At the moment, that excellent advice is certainly not being carried out on circuit. The trial of civil actions on the Northern Circuit is being delayed far too long. In pre-war days, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, we had two judges on the Northern Circuit, one the " red judge " doing criminal work and the other doing civil work. It was the normal thing to have three- or four-week assizes alternating, and in those days, without exception, the " red judge " finished his work after about the tenth day, or certainly after the first fortnight, and thereafter there were two judges doing civil work at Liverpool and Manchester.
    The result was that one had six working weeks of judicial time at Liverpool and Manchester devoted to civil cases. I do not know whether the non-legal Members of this House are aware of the fact, but that is no longer the case at either Liverpool or Manchester. Indeed, during the last few assizes, instead of the civil judge getting help from the " red judge," he actually sat for periods of well over a week, and sometimes for a fortnight, assisting the " red judge." The position, therefore, is that the civil work is lagging behind.
    There has been a large increase in crime in the last few years, and this has resulted in a great deal of discussion from the social point of view, but its effect upon the administration of justice has hardly been discussed at all. The judges have spent nearly 50 per cent. more time on criminal work in the last few years than they spent before the war. It is unfortunate that that condition has now existed in Liverpool and Manchester for over two years. After my last three visits to the Northern Circuit I considered that I should speak personally to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on this subject. I pointed out in detail exactly what had been happening on the Northern Circuit, and I think he agreed that the position was not all that it should be. Therefore, we must, as he has said, have another judge at Liverpool and Manchester.

    1713
    I have heard it suggested by those who do not take part in the administration of justice, or who are perhaps qualified but non-practising lawyers, that we ought to sit longer hours. At assizes, we almost invariably sit long hours. Last December, one of the judges at the Manchester Assize sat on a case in which I was concerned every day from the Tuesday to the Friday until 7 or 7.30 p.m., and then sat on Saturday as well.
    It is no unusual thing—again, as the hon. and learned Member knows—for Saturdays on the Northern Circuit to be occupied by criminal and civil cases. Very often the layman looks at the time of the sitting of the court, which is 10.30, and, if he himself starts work at, say, 8.30 or 9 o'clock, considers that rather a late hour for judges to commence their work. But one has to remember that a great deal has to go on before 10.30 in the morning. On circuit, conferences and consultations often start as early as 9 o'clock, and sometimes even earlier, and if one has four or five cases with which to deal, even starting at that early hour it allows less than half an hour per consultation, which is barely sufficient.
    Indeed, sitting at 10.30 a.m. gives little enough time, and if the judge sits late in the evening, the opportunity of seeing clients and having consultations with solicitors after the court rises, disappears. Furthermore, the work does not finish when the court rises because the next day those engaged in litigation have of course to read their briefs.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Occasionally.
    Mr. Scholefield Allen: It is not surprising, however, that this congestion exists when we remember that there are the same number of judges—or perhaps one more in the King's Bench Division today as there were 80 years ago when the population was half what it is today.
    There is another aspect of the matter which I do not think has so far been mentioned. In 1907, the Court of Criminal Appeal was established, and from that date onwards that court frequently had three judges sitting together several days a week. At the present time, owing to the large number of criminal appeals consequent upon the larger amount of crime, that court is sitting even longer, and there has been
    1714
    no real access of judicial strength to make up for the great amount of extra work.
    I could not agree more wholeheartedly with what has been said from both sides of the House with regard to the appoint. ment of commissioners. However admirable these gentlemen may be, they are not popular with litigants. Whether they are popular with solicitors, I cannot say.
    Mr. S. Silverman: They are not.
    Mr. Scholefield Allen: I hear someone murmuring, " They are not," and they are certainly not popular with litigants. Many a litigant has said to me, " I want the real judge," the implication being that the commissioner is not a real judge, and in some senses he is not. It is true that he is judging a case, but he is not one of His Majesty's judges learned in the law. and many litigants think that they are getting a second-class deal. Therefore, as I say, I support what has been said on both sides that the appointment of commissioners, except in emergency, is not a good practice, should not be a general practice, and should cease as soon as possible.
    I believe that the reform of all reforms long overdue in our legal system is the reform of fixing days for the trial of civil actions. This was one of the chief recommendations of the Evershed Committee. and it is particularly desirable at assizes. I remember one case within the last 12 months—and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne will probably remember it too—which was put in the list on Monday. The litigants and the witnesses came from a farm and farm cottages in the country some miles from Preston. Those people had to rise at 5 a.m. in order to begin their journey on foot, to take a bus ride, get a train from Preston to Liverpool, and get to the court at 10.30. They did that journey on the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and even then their case was not reached.
    That is the kind of thing that has been happening. It is perhaps an exaggerated case, but it is not uncommon for a case to be in the list for two, three or three and a half days before it is reached. The corridors of St. George's Hall in Liverpool, where the judges sit, is something like the Division Lobby on a night when the Conservative Party come from a cave

    1715
    in order to attempt to defeat the Government. I am not exaggerating when I say that, on occasion, it is almost impossible to walk up and down the corridor. As we get to the end of the assize there are 17, 18, or 19 cases put in the list and all the parties on each side troop up and down that corridor waiting, waiting, waiting. One cannot blame the judges when one considers the pressure of work that exists today, but I believe the object, or one object, is to try to force settlements. It is a very successful way of forcing settlements, but it is a most undesirable thing.
    One reform that is necessary is the Evershed reform—the fixing of days for trial. It must necessarily waste judicial time, but I believe that would be offset by a much greater saving of time by counsel, solicitors, doctors, expert witnesses, business men and witnesses who have no interest in the litigation except that they actually observed some accident or were dragged into it. Thousands of pounds a day are wasted in the corridors of St. George's Hall. But we must have these crowded lists as long as we have this shortage of judges and we do not have fixed days.
    I am sorry to see that it is stated in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill:
    " It is unlikely that more than two such appointments will be required immediately."
    I am certain that four—I would say six —judges are necessary today if this essential reform of fixing days is to be carried out. It will cost more to the Treasury but we have a kind-hearted lawyer there now. We have my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has had experience in these matters. Without much argument from the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney-General he ought to be able to appreciate that this reform, though it would cost the Treasury more, would save the community hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. That is a consideration which should be offset against what, after all, is a paltry sum in our vast Budget expenditure. I hope that, armed with this Bill, the Lord Chancellor will press on to achieve immediately this most desirable reform.
    4.33 p.m.
    Sir Arnold Gridley: I would hardly have ventured to intervene in this Debate but for the fact that
    1716
    I am one of the very few laymen serving on the Evershed Committee. We have sat now for nearly two and a half years. I think our various meetings total between 250 and 270 and, so far as I can see at the moment, it will be some considerable time before we ultimately finish our deliberations and present our final report. As a layman I am very conscious of the fact that I have contributed very little of value to the proceedings of that Comimttee. On the other hand, I have learned a very great deal about legal proceedings of which I never had knowledge before.
    There is one point which the Attorney-General did not touch upon today, but to which I attach importance when we consider the number of judges that the Lord Chancellor should have it within his power to appoint. If I am correct in my memory, I believe it to be a fact that there are certain assize towns which are visited annually by one judge. He has to try both the criminal and the civil cases. If there is a large number of criminal cases, the civil list may not be completed. The unfortunate litigants find that the proceedings have to be carried over from one assize to another, which means very serious delay and considerably increased cost. If that difficulty which persists today is to be overcome, it is obvious that more judges will be required to cope with the work. It would certainly be very beneficial if two judges were sent to an assize, one to deal with criminal business and the other to deal with the civil cases.
    We have taken a mass of evidence from all who could possibly contribute to the solution of the problems set before the Evershed Committee. We have also had the advantage on one occasion of obtaining the views of the Attorney-General himself. Perhaps that is one reason why we are having this Bill so soon after the Interim Report. It is certainly urgent that more judges should be appointed. They are working long hours, longer hours than the Attorney-General himself thinks desirable, and they should be relieved. They cannot possibly be relieved until more " judge strength," if I may use that term, is available.
    I hope that one difficulty, which has yet to be faced, namely, the lack of adequate assize court accommodation will not necessarily deter the Lord Chancellor

    1717
    from appointing at least four judges without undue delay. According to the evidence we have received from all over the country, it does seem that not only will there have to be more judges, but more assize court accommodation must be made available. That is a matter which ought to receive urgent attention. At present, some of our temporary law courts are hardly appropriate buildings in which the proceedings of the High Court should be conducted, but we have to do the best we can in the abnormal circumstances of today.
    I agree wholeheartedly with every word that has been said about the immense value of introducing the fixed day system wherever practicable. We have received overwhelming evidence to the effect that if only that could be introduced in civil cases—it may not be possible in criminal cases—it would be one of the best methods of reducing the cost of litigation to the litigant.
    I do not think that at this stage I have anything further to say on this Bill, and I imagine there will be no difference of view about the Bill in any quarter of the House. It is an urgent necessity. The fact that the parties are so equally divided in the House is perhaps one reason why there is this early opportunity of bringing forward a non-controversial Measure. I hope a Second Reading will be given to it promptly.
    4.40 p.m.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I think it is plain from what has already been said that His Majesty's judges are by no means among the least overworked of the sections of our community. Reference has already been made to the fact that they have been sitting late hours. I know that in this House where hon. Members are not unaccustomed to having all-night sittings, it may be thought that the same procedure might be followed in a court of law. But that is quite impossible with the judge, the legal profession and, indeed, the jurors working at high pressure the whole time.
    Even if there were a lingering suspicion that increased hours might effect some saving or give some benefit to the administration of justice in the courts, I think it would be a good thing for this House to pay attention to decisions in the Court of Criminal Appeal where this practice of sitting late hours has recently been criticised as having led already to very bad
    1718
    results in the administration of justice. Along that line I entirely agree with hon. Members who have spoken before me that there is no possible progress.
    The strain on the judiciary has been to a large extent lessened by the system of appointing commissioners to which reference has already been made. Not only is there high judicial authority against this practice; not only is it undoubtedly true that litigants think they have had the the second best when they had a commissioner, but the gentlemen themselves who act as commissioners, as is shown in the evidence in the Interim Report of the Evershed Committee, realise that this system of commissioners is a bad system. It is obviously not easy to act one moment as a judge and the next moment as advocate, doing a sort of " Cox and Box " affair. It is not going to be in keeping with the dignity of the bench if that sort of system is allowed to be carried on.
    I know that some fear has been expressed that if the number of judges is increased there might be some dilution of quality on the bench. In my submission, there is little that can be said for that argument, but if there is anything at all to be said for it surely when applied to the system of commissioners. If they are part-time judges it may well be that the standard, through no fault of their own, will be diluted if they were used in any numbers.
    I was interested to hear the Attorney-General refer to the possibility of an increased strain on the judiciary as a result of the passage of the Legal Aid Act. Our justice, of which we have been so proud for so long, is now to be brought to the door of every home, certainly to the poorest. It may be that there is a level of income where our judicial system will still not be very freely accessible, but at any rate it is to be brought to an increased number of homes, and certainly to the poorest, and I imagine that it would be in the county courts where this extra strain would be felt even more than in the High Court.
    It is unfortunate that it should be impossible—I admit it is impossible at the moment—when increasing the numbers of the judges to increase also their emoluments. After all, they were settled long ago in the last century, and 10 per cent. was taken off those salaries when the civil servants had to suffer a cut of

    1719
    10 per cent., although judges are not civil servants. I now understand that the higher ranges of civil servants are awaiting an increase in salary, and I suppose the judges will have to wait until these Civil Service salaries are raised.
    The Attorney-General: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, I think he is under a misapprehension. That cut was restored.
    Mr. Mallalieu: My right hon. and learned Friend is quite right. The cut was restored. But now there is talk of an increase in the salaries of the higher grade civil servants. I believe the justice of their case has been recognised, and they are waiting until such time as the national finances will make it possible to grant that increase. I understand that the Civil Service salaries were very much smaller 100 years ago than they are today. Yet that cannot be said of judges' salaries. It is a pity, therefore, that it is impossible at this stage to discuss a Measure which would give such better reward as would remove a long-standing grievance in the judiciary.
    I believe there is little fear of a dilution in the ability of the judicial bench if the numbers of the judges are increased. We need not necessarily go into biological speculations as to whether intelligence and ability are lowered when the population increases. If that is so, I suppose it is probable that the intelligence and ability of the judges would be lowered at the same time as that of the rest of the population, but I do not think we need worry about that at the moment because there are undoubtedly so many more people from whom to choose the judges than there were before.
    Therefore, I think we can assume that there would be just as high a standard of ability as ever before on the judicial bench, even though the numbers of the judges are increased. In any case, I think we can say without fear of contradiction that since 1945, and probably long before then, there have always been the happiest of appointments to the bench whenever it has been necessary to fill vacancies. I think this House can leave it to whatever Lord Chancellor may be in power and to the general standard at the Bar to see that that standard is maintained in the future.
    4.46 p.m.
    Sir Herbert Williams: As one who in no sense is connected with the law and who has never been a litigant, I have listened with interest to this Debate. It has always amazed me that the law has been conducted so inefficiently. We now have this new idea that we should fix the date at which something is going to happen. I cannot understand why this was not done many years ago. I remember some years ago reading a speech by Sir Rufus Isaacs, who I think was then holding the same office as the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill. Speaking at the annual meeting of the Bar, he used words to this effect, " A delay in justice is a denial of justice." Those delays certainly exist. There are many people who do not risk going to law because of the delays and the great cost incurred when proceedings do not take place on a known date.
    Therefore, while I rejoice that we are going to increase the number of judges, it seems to me that the Attorney-General has roared like a lion and is only bringing forth two little mice. Why should there not be an arrangement whereby two judges will be able to play golf—
    Mr. Carmichael: Play golf?
    Sir H. Williams: Why should not they play golf? If there is no particular work for them on a certain day, who is going to mind if they play golf? The Attorney-General himself referred to golf, and I think it is a very sound idea. Every time a Bill has been brought before Parliament to change the number of judges there has been hesitancy and fear lest there should get around som: idea of " jobs for the boys," although this Government is not terrified by that any more, because it is hardened to the idea. This reform should be brought about. l' is monstrous that there should be cases waiting for decisions, with everything ready except a room and a judge to preside over the proceedings.
    Reference has been made to judges' salaries. The Attorney-General said that it is 100 years since the present salaries were fixed. Let me take the House back to 1914 and examine the situation. Roughly speaking, the cost of living today is three times as great as it was in 1914.

    1721
    That is a reasonable comparison. High court judges got £5,000 a year. The basic rate of Income Tax on earned income was 9d. in the £. I have forgotten what the abatement was; I think it was only £70. I think that was the only allowance given to men earning over £700 a year and I am not certain whether they got any allowance at all if their income was over £700 a year. However, judges paid tax at the rate of 9d. on their £5,000 a year and had a net income of about £4,850. Today a judge will receive, net, £2,555. I am assuming that he is a married man with no dependent children.
    If we convert that sum to the purchasing power of 1914 we find an income which, in terms of 1914, would be £850. In 1914 it was thought reasonable that a man should have £4,850 a year net; it enabled him to live properly and with appropriate dignity, and I think it is right that a judge should live with appropriate dignity. Quite obviously, on the present salary judges cannot do that today. The only judges I happen to know personally are those who have been Members of this honourable House. Before the war it was possible for a man at the Bar to save a little out of his income, now it is not possible.
    I understand, too, that judges are not too well treated as far as their expenses are concerned while they are on circuit. I do not know the exact facts, but I do not think any judge can do a job on circuit unless he has private means in addition to his salary. The probability is that most of them are out of pocket on an income which is quite deplorable in relation to their supreme responsibilities to the community. I think that is monstrous, and I am glad that the Attorney-General mentioned the subject casually, if a little hesitantly.
    We ought to pay an appropriate salary. When they fixed very high salaries for judges, our ancestors tried to make the position attractive to men of the highest ability and integrity, and unless we do that we shall come to disaster. The problem will arise in due course as to whether we shall be able to get all the judges we need. I very much doubt whether we shall. This is a serious matter. The only attraction about being a judge instead of a barrister today is the security given by the pension on retirement. It is a fact that most people suffer a substantial loss
    1722
    in their income on being appointed to the Bench, and the time will come when it will not be easy for the Lord Chancellor to induce able banisters to go on to the Bench. We have, therefore, to face the realities some time or another.
    I have no interest in the Bar and I do not expect I shall ever have an interest in it. My only knowledge of judicial proceedings is when I go once a year to Bow Street where the magistrates fine me £1 for travelling at zero speed too long in the street. I have never been engaged in litigation in the county court or High Court, but I watch and read what happens in those courts and I am appalled by the present situation. I look upon this Bill as but a timid correction of what I regard as an abuse of our system of justice.
    4.53 p.m.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: It would be altogether out of character for the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) to make a non-controversial contribution to any debate, no matter how non-controversial the subject. I do not say that in criticism of him at all, because it enlivens our proceedings, but I hope he will not mind if I say, at the outset, that there are two things he said with which I profoundly disagree. One of them was also said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen), and although it was not actually said by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), even he hinted at it.
    In these days 1 do not regard the emoluments of High Court judges as inadequate. I think it is a wholly wrong view to take for one to suggest that in these days they should be increased. I realise, as other hon. Members have said, that the salaries and allowances they get were fixed a long time ago and that their relative value has diminished considerably in the meantime. But I beg hon. Members to realise that in those days, when the salaries were fixed, society tolerated a degree of disparity of income which society today would not tolerate.
    As I have said before, and as the hon. Member for Croydon, East, has said very often, we cannot get a quart out of a pint pot. If we set ourselves to improve the lot of the lower paid section of our

    1723
    community, we have to remember that part of the cost must be borne by those who, previous to the rectification, received more than their share. If the result was that the salary of the judge was in itself inadequate, there would be a case for increasing it, but it is not inadequate; £5,000 a year is a very handsome sum. The salaries of Ministers of the Crown were fixed at about the same time—I am not sure whether it was not by the same instrument as that fixing the salaries of judges—and no one protests that the salaries of Ministers should be increased.
    Sir H. Williams: Most of them have been increased.
    Mr. Silverman: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. The generality of salaries for senior Ministers of the Crown has not been increased, any more than the salaries of judges have been increased, and I think the House would be unanimously opposed to any proposal for increasing the salaries of senior Ministers, which was made for the same consideration as is suggested in the cases of judges.
    Sir H. Williams: The President of the Board of Trade formerly received £2,000 a year and the President of the Board of Education received £2,000 a year. I believe the Minister of Agriculture received that, too. Junior Ministers received £1,500 a year whereas now they receive £2,000 a year. Today the Prime Minister receives £4,000 a year tax free, two houses and a motor car.
    Mr. Silverman: I felt quite certain that the hon. Member had heard and understood what I said, although one would not realise it from the character of his interruption. I said that salaries of senior Ministers of the Government had not been increased.
    Captain Crookshank: What about the Prime Minister's salary?
    Mr. Silverman: As I said before, generally they have not been increased; the case of the Prime Minister is the only exception. The two cases of senior Ministers to which the hon. Member for Croydon, East, referred were cases not of increases in salary but of changes of status when both those appointments were raised to the rank of senior Minister from the rank of junior Minister.
    Sir H. Williams: No; it goes back before the war—a long time.
    Mr. Silverman: Even if the exceptions which the hon. Member mentions were proved to be well-founded, it would not alter the point I was making—and I hope I have his attention because he did see fit to interrupt me. Even if I admitted his exceptions, I am sure he would agree that the point I was making was a valid one—that for the most part the salaries of Ministers of the Crown have not been increased and that the House would be unanimously opposed to any suggestion of an increase. Indeed, if it were argued, I think the case for increasing them, would be a better one than the case for increasing the salaries of judges, because of their more precarious tenure and of the fact that they do not carry the pension which the hon. Member for Croydon, East, himself said was one of the principal attractions to men when they accepted elevation to the Bench.
    In days when we are struggling hard to find some equitable way—and so far failing to find it—of raising the income of the lowest paid workers, I do not think it would be an advantageous thing to begin by proposing to increase the salaries of His Majesty's judges. Nor do I think that when a man accepts an appointment to the Bench he is principally concerned with the financial advantages of doing so. even if the financial advantages were to be more real than, in fact, they are.
    There is no doubt that most of these men—I do not say all of them—suffer a considerable sacrifice of income when they leave the Bar to go on to the Bench. They do it because they value some other things more. Most of them have made a good deal of money by that time. [HON. MEMBERS: " But cannot save it today."] Oh, I think most of them have made a good deal of money, all the same. However, I think that most of them are attracted by the change of sphere of activity, and they like and appreciate the honour of being appointed. They like judicial work. They regard these things as more important than the loss of financial emolument which does sometimes accompany them.
    Nor would I accept the hon. Member's suggestion that we ought to increase the judges to such a number as would enable two of them to be permanently unemployed. I think that would be going

    1725
    too far. I can—I think the hon. Member can, too—just imagine what play he would make with any suggestion to appoint coal miners on the same principle. It would be an admirable thing that coal miners, and other people, too, should occasionally be able to have a day off from work in order to play golf. I hope the day will come when we shall be able to have such an advantage for judges and everybody else. Certainly 1 am not against it in principle. I think it is a very attractive social target to keep in view.
    Sir H. Williams: Even for Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Silverman: As for the question of " jobs for the boys," which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned before, if he did not mention it on this occasion, it was because of the fact that most of the " boys " belong to his side rather than to the Government side.
    The non—controversial part of the Measure—and I think everybody supports it—has for its principal object increasing the number of judges both in the High Court and in the county courts. It is quite impossible for the judicial function to be properly performed if the Bench is inadequately manned numerically, and I am inclined to agree with the criticism of the Financial Memorandum, that it is not proposed to exercise more than a third of the power which the Bill gives; that is to say, that it is not expected that more than two will be appointed to the High Court Bench immediately, rather than six. I do not know whether six are necessary. I am quite certain that two, though it will be a welcome improvement, will go only a small way towards speeding up the process of law as it ought to be speeded up.
    I think something ought to be said—one says it with some diffidence because it is a difficult thing to say—about quality. We all agree that we need more judges; but we have to have the right kind of judges. I do not know how many Members agree with me, either those who practise in one or other branch of the profession, or those who have had experience as litigants, or those who.have no experience at all; but I am bound to say that, speaking for myself—I may be wrong: I hope I am—I have a quite clear
    1726
    conviction that the judicial quality of the Bench is not improving in our time. I do not know what the cause of it may be, and, indeed, I repeat that I may be wholly wrong, but I do form the impression myself that the judicial quality is not improving.
    There are many notable exceptions. I should be out of Order in particularising and I do not want to particularise, anyhow. But there is a feeling among a great many people about the judicial quality, not merely the sense of dignity of the Bench—there is plenty of that; maybe too much of it—but the responsibility,—the sense of responsibility with which justices invade provinces which are not theirs, and sometimes almost the levity with which people sitting on the Bench will say, with all weight and seriousness and pontificality, things which do not bear analysis at all —like the learned judge the other day who said "facts speak louder than statistics."
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. Is it not out of Order to criticise His Majesty's judges except on a Humble Address to His Majesty?
    Mr. Deputy—Speaker (Major Milner): I think that that restriction, which is, of course, a very proper one, applies more particularly to the criticism of a specific judge, and not to a general discussion such as this on the Second Reading of a Bill where I gather the hon. Gentleman is giving an illustration.
    Sir H. Williams: The hon. Member made a specific reference to a specific judge.
    Mr. Silverman: I used it only to illustrate the kind of thing I had in mind. I had no intention of criticising anybody. If an hon. Member addresses the House and says things by way of generalisation, such as I have said, then it is his duty, as well as his right, to indicate to the House the kind of thing which prompted him to do so.
    Mr. Manningham—Buller: Surely it must be wrong to illustrate or seek to illustrate an argument of that character by a quotation from something some judge has said with a view to conveying an implication against that particular judge?
    Mr. Deputy—Speaker: It is a little difficult. The hon. Gentleman has not specified a judge
    Mr. Peter Roberts: Oh, yes, he did.
    Mr. Deputy—Speaker: —or identified him. At least, I did not gather that he did so.
    Mr. Silverman: Perhaps, I may explain. I do not want to be diverted for too long, and the last thing I want to do is to abuse the privilege that a Member of this House has in addressing it, but I think the only thing that would be out of order would be attacking the motives or the intentions or the character or the conduct of a particular judge. I am not doing that at all. I do not think it has ever been out of order, even in a specific case, to say one does not agree with a particular judgment or a particular statement, even if one identifies the judge who made it. I submit that I am perfectly within my rights, and that it is, indeed, my duty, having made a general proposition, to illustrate it by an unidentified quotation, without any reflection on the conduct or motives of the particular gentleman who made the statement. That is all I intended to say, and I do not want to take any further time on the matter. The statement to which I referred was in fact made by a High Court judge and printed in all the newspapers, and that is an illustration of the kind of irresponsible, ill—considered statements—
    Mr. Deputy—Speaker: I understood the hon. Gentleman was not going to carry the matter any further. If there has been an offence, he is certainly making it doubly offensive.
    Mr. Silverman: I leave it willingly. I do not want to pursue it at all. I said, when starting on this part of my speech, that I spoke with diffidence. When the House is considering, on the very rare occasions on which the House has the opportunity of considering, this question —I do not know how long it is since we had a Bill of this kind—I think the House would not be doing its duty if it did not pay some attention to quality as well as to numbers, and that is the point which I was making. I should be very interested to know whether other people in or outside the profession share my own feeling with regard to it. I say
    1728
    once more that I may be wholly wrong, and I hope I am wholly wrong, but my conviction is a very deep and clear one for all that.
    Now, how are we to see that the quality is got—at any rate, that the quality is maintained, if hon. Members prefer to put it that way. A good deal has been said today about commissioners, and general exception has been taken to their appointment. Some of them, of course, have been people who have had very considerable judicial experience elsewhere, but no experience at home. That has led to a good deal of criticism, and I should like my right hon. and learned Friend, and perhaps the Lord Chancellor, to consider whether a system of probationary commissioners might not be a good thing to introduce into the judiciary. It very frequently happens—any lawyer can think of instances—that a man who was not very distinguished at the Bar becomes a very good judge indeed, whereas others who have been quite brilliant at the Bar have proved rather disappointing on the Bench.
    The judicial quality is a very rare thing, and that I think is one of the principal reasons for opposing the increase of hours in the working day of judges sitting in courts. I do not believe it is humanly possible for any man alive to be judicial for more than five hours a day. It is very rare for any of us to achieve that quality for anything like so long. The only way in which to test whether a man has the judicial capacity or not is to try him out. When a man has been appointed to the Bench it is very difficult to do anything about it if a mistake has been made, and I am just wondering whether it might not be a very useful thing to introduce into our judicial machinery a kind of probationary appointment for a year or two years before full confirmation of membership of the High Court Bench is given.
    Now I want to say a word or two about something to which nobody has referred much since the opening speech, and that is the county court judge. I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the county court is a very important court, and that the administration of justice can be maintained or undermined more quickly in the county court than in the High Court. Far more cases are tried there; they may not be such important cases as are tried in the High Court and

    1729
    the amount of money in dispute may be less, but they are much closer to the people's eyes and much more important to the litigants than a great many of the cases tried in the High Courts. The qualities required of a county court judge are not less than, and I should have thought they are more than, are required of a High Court judge.
    Here I agree with the remarks made about salaries. I do not think we shall get the best type of appointment to the county court bench while the disparity in salaries between the £5,000 paid to a High Court judge and the £2,000 paid to a county court judge remains. I think that there is a much stronger case for increasing the salaries of county court judges than for increasing the salaries of High Court judges. Many a good man will refuse appointment to the county court bench because he regards it as an end of his career; he thinks that if he accepts an appointment to the county court bench all hope of further judicial advancement has gone. Well, of course, by statute it has not; men can be promoted from the county court bench to the High Court Bench; there have been men who have, in fact, been promoted from the county court bench to the High Court Bench. I think the Lord Chancellor would do a great service in strengthening the standing and prestige of the county court judiciary if he did either of those things, and certainly if he could do both: raise the salaries, and make it quite clear that the road to advancement is not barred by acceptance of appointment to the county court bench.
    I want to say one other thing, which I say with greater diffidence than ever. The time has gone by when appointments to the Bench should or ought to be limited to one branch of the legal profession. There was for a very long time ample justification for regarding appointment to judicial office as the monopoly of the Bar. In the days when it began and for generations afterwards, there was ample justification for that, but I do not think there is today. I think that solicitors are more in touch with the daily life of the people than most members of the Bar: their legal education is not inferior; their legal experience is not inferior; their judicial quality is not inferior; and I should have
    1730
    thought the time had come when, even if the general question of the fusion of the two branches is not pressed, at any rate the monopoly of one branch of it in judicial appointments might be reviewed. I throw that out as a suggestion. I think it is one that has a certain amount of urgency when considering getting the best available people for either of the Benches.
    That is all I want to trouble the House with. I apologise for having been longer than I intended, although I was interrupted a little. Before sitting down, I do want to say that apart from all these criticisms, suggestions and general ideas, I heartily endorse what everybody else has endorsed—the necessity for this Bill.
    5.17 p.m.
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: I promise to be much shorter in making my speech than the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), because, as a layman, I feel that I should speak very briefly in the presence of so many lawyers. I want to deal with one point, and one only, and that is the salaries of judges. I think we should be quite frank about this business. In the last 100 years there has been only one alteration in the salaries of judges—one short cut under the 1931 economy cuts when judge's salaries were cut with those of other civil servants. For 100 years their salary has remained the same, apart from that. If we are to get the very best men to be judges, their salaries must be considered in relation to the earnings in the whole system of law. Consider what a successful barrister will earn.
    The Attorney—General: And journalists.
    Mr. Baxter: I will come to journalism in a minute, but I rejoice in the fact that there are outstanding rewards for outstanding men. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer works for a salary far below his intellectual attainments, although it is too much for his political judgment. He earned probably £25,000 a year when he was at the Bar. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) could, if he devoted all his time to the Bar today, earn £20,000 or £25,000 a year. By what system of selection and judgment do we decide that a judge, in the whole realm of the salaries and

    1731
    appointments of successful men, should get only £5,000 a year! A man sitting in judgment should have the maximum of intellectual calm and nervous self—control.
    So far, the system has beer to appoint barristers, The chances are that a man who is made a judge has been a successful barrister, if not one of the absolute leaders of the Bar. He has established a certain way of life; quite rightly, he lives in a certain style; he has commitments, which, very often, go in many directions. Then, suddenly, he is offered a salary which will cause him many harassments and will mean his sitting upon the bench in a frame of mind in which he cannot do his best work.
    If judges have not had their salaries raised in good times or bad—this does not concern the present Government—they have been badly treated. When the Attorney—General says that the cost cannot be borne at present, he means that the principle cant—161 be carried at the present time; the cost is nothing. To raise the salaries of all county court judges and High Court judges would not amount to £100,000 a year. I think it is entirely wrong that these men should be treated so badly.
    I do not think that there is any other point that I want to raise, but, as a layman, I put down this principle: that in a profession where awards are so great for outstanding men, it is not common sense or common justice to say that those who adjudicate on the cases argued by those men shall be rated so much lower, that they are not able to bring to their task the detachment and ease of mind essential to their degree of judgment.
    5.21 p.m.
    Mr. Weitzman: We have had several speeches dealing with the question of the salaries of judges. I should very much have liked to follow on those lines, but I do not think that there is anything in the provisions of the Bill that deals with the question of increasing salaries. I listened to the admirable arguments put forward by the learned Attorney—General, and I do not desire to waste the time of the House in attempting, perhaps ineffectively to repeat some of his arguments.
    1732
    I desire to draw attention only to one point. A great deal has been said about the benefit that would accrue to the circuit system if more judges were appointed. We have had illustrations of the terrible state of affairs in Manchester and Liverpool and of what is happening there. I do hope that if more judges are to be appointed it will be remembered that in the metropolis, in London, there is a crying need for more judges.
    The real problem is here in London, and I would like to emphasise, by way of illustration, this fact: In London begin the term, for example, in January. The judges go away from London on circuit after a few weeks and the High Court of Justice is depleted of judges. Very often we have a long list of cases with probably only two or three courts sitting, with one or two cases on their list—for hearing, and the result is that there is very great delay. The Attorney—General mentioned, for example, that we might get a delay of eight to nine months in the hearing of a case. I am sure that he would be the first to agree and I speak from personal experience that that is not only a usual delay, but that very often the delay is much more considerable.
    It is obviously a crying scandal that in London, which gets the bulk of the cases, there should be no courts available to deal with them much more expeditiously. In London, just as on circuit —not only in the county courts but in the High Courts—again and again we have an assembly comprising counsel, lawyers, litigants, experts, business men, and, I would like to add, working people who attend day after day waiting for their cases to be heard. These are real difficulties. They have been emphasised, and I hope, as has already been stated, that the increase in the number of judges will not be limited to the two mentioned in the Financial Memorandum, I trust that the Lord Chancellor will avail himself of the powers given to him, to appoint the full complement of judges which is needed.
    I hope that it will be emphasised that the real need is for attention to cases in London, and if a change is made, I hope that it will not be made at the expense of London. I also hope that judges will not be created and sent out

    1733
    on circuit, but will be available to assist in clearing up arrears so that the work in London does not suffer as it has done in the past. I think that this is an excellent Measure, long overdue, and I hope that it will come into law as quickly as possible. It will pay for the money expended, by the saving of public time and the considerable satisfaction which that will give to litigants and to the business world.
    5.25 p.m.
    Mr. John Hay: I think that this Bill has had a general welcome from all parts of the House, and there seems to be only one criticism that can be levied against it, which has already been levied by several hon. Members, and that is that it does not go quite far enough in that there will not be sufficient judges made by several hon. Members, and that ought never to be in short supply. It is important that we should realise that the money which we propose to spend as a result of this particular Bill is going for a very useful purpose. I see that the total amount of money which the taxpayer is paying out on these judges of the High Court and county courts to be appointed is only about £49,800 in any one year. I think that would be a cheap price to ensure that everyone gets the full measure of justice which is his due as a citizen.
    I want to say something about the county courts and county court judges who are to be appointed. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) touched on a rather difficult subject, namely, the quality of county court judges. As a newcomer to this House, I do not propose to follow him on the path he has trodden, or I should probably find myself in serious difficulties, but we have been told that the legal aid scheme will at some time be implemented, and there is forecast by the Evershed Report an extension of the county court system. This will put an additional burden on the county court judges.
    Few people realise how overworked the county court judges are. A considerable increase in the work imposed upon them has been largely as a result of special Statutes, as the Attorney—General knows. They have had jurisdiction in contract and tort and in the recovery
    1734
    of land for the last 100 years, but additional functions have been put on their shoulders to discharge. As the House probably recollects, they have jurisdiction in bankruptcy, in the matter of the winding—up of companies, in the Rent Restriction Acts—which occupy a very great proportion of the time of every county court judge—the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Agricultural Holdings Act and workmen's compensation.
    All these burdens are constantly being added to by Parliament. For example only the other day, we were considering a Bill which will add more to the work which the county court judge will have to do in the Distribution of Industry Bill. Since the war, the county court judge has also had imposed on him the additional work of divorce, where he exercises the functions of a special commissioner. The result, as I have seen as a practising solicitor, is that to many litigants and people who come before the county court, the county court judge seems to have to rush through his list far too quickly. I believe it is in Magna Carta that these words appear:
    " To no man will we sell, to no man deny, to no man delay justice or right."
    I think that we have to see that the county court judges appointed are of sufficiently high quality to be able to exercise their judicial functions in all these additional cases that fall upon them. I also hope that in the course of time—a very short time—additional judges not only to the High Court but also to the county courts will be appointed.
    May I suggest one other thing to the Attorney—General? I have wondered for some time whether the whole system of county court circuits might not be completely overhauled and examined. I think there is a great deal to be said for completely recasting all these circuits, because it is undoubtedly true that here and there one finds a county court judge having, by reason of the fact that it is upon his circuit, to sit in a particular town where there may be very little work for him to do and one where that work might be transferred to a larger centre of population. I hope that that suggestion may arouse some kind of friendly interest in the mind of the Attorney—General.
    For my part, and I am certain I also speak for other solicitors, I welcome this Bill. We all wish to see justice carried

    1735
    out in the best possible way, and I believe that this modest Measure will go far towards bringing about that desire.
    5.30 p.m.
    Lieut.—Colonel Lipton: One point worth emphasising is that the legal system on which we pride ourselves so much exists not for the benefit or convenience of the judiciary, but for the benefit of the general public. In other words, this is a public service which must serve the interests of people who, unfortunately in many cases, have to go to law to establish their rights. There has been a tendency in some of the speeches we have heard to attach rather too much importance to the convenience of the judicial hierarchy, rather than to paying attention to the needs of litigants. That seems to place the priority the wrong way round.
    In so many instances in the conduct of our judicial administration, it is the convenience of the judge that is the first consideration, followed by the convenience of the counsel, then the solicitors and, lastly in this long queue, the unfortunate litigant or witness who may be involved in the proceedings. Here, as in so many phases of our public services, it is the consumer who is entitled to first consideration. It would have been interesting if the Attorney—General had carried his arithmetical investigations a little further and given us the number of hours per annum during which a High Court judge has to sit. That might have enabled us 'to form a better idea of the pressure of work that is being imposed upon the judges.
    To those who have referred to the inadequacy of the salaries, I would say that by increasing the number of judges, and thereby reducing the burden of work imposed upon them, we are giving them less work to do for the same rate of pay they are receiving at the present time.
    Parliament places our judges in a privileged position, and on appropriate occasions it is correct to argue that Parliament has the right to say what is expected of them. If I may be so bold as to put forward the suggestion, I think that the Lord Chancellor, in deciding who shall be appointed to fill the vacancies we are now considering, might very well point out to the new judges who are coming along, or suggest to them, that
    1736
    they should resist the temptation to say what the law should be and how it ought to be amended or improved. In a number of instances, these extra—judicial pronouncements are, in my view, a trespass upon the rights of Parliament. It is Parliament that should decide what the law should be. If legal reforms are necessary, and learned judges desire to express their views, I submit that they are more than adequately represented in another place, where sit the Lord Chancellor, the Lords of Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, who can make whatever contributions may be necessary for such reforms in our legal system as may be deemed necessary.
    The primary duty of a judge is to administer the law, not to suggest what the law should be. To develop that point a little further, I would suggest that it might be possible to draw the attention of those who are to be appointed to the inadvisability of High Court judges writing articles to the Press, taking part in controversial debates on the B.B.C. and things of that sort, which do not help to strengthen the position of the judges in the eyes of the public generally, and are not conducive to the maintenance of the dignity and impartiality which the average person expects from the eminent and learned men who are given this high honour.
    I am more than thankful that I have been able to make these remarks within the rules of Order and without evoking any interjection from learned Members. I feel, however, that these observations ought to be made on an occasion like this, with all due respect to the persons concerned or likely to be concerned. I join with those who have already welcomed the Bill.
    5.38 p.m.
    Mr. Gage: I apologise for not having been present for the earlier part of this Debate. I intend, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter), to be brief, because I believe that lawyers should be brief in the presence of so many laymen. Like everyone else, I welcome the Bill. It is, I think, a remarkable thing that in a country which prides itself on one thing above all things, and that is on having perhaps the best judicial system in the world, we

    1737
    should have been so niggardly over the years in relation to it, and that the many people who have criticised the law's delay have been the last to recognise that the only way to put it right is by appointing further judges.
    Anyone familiar with the law will know that one of the most trying things about the delays in the courts is the rhythm at which the business proceeds. As we know, in some cases, such as with the long non—jury list, it takes almost a year from " setting down " to trial. What happens is that solicitors get accustomed to that period of delay. They know that when they set a case down they have a year to prepare it. It is, therefore, natural that busy people should take advantage of that until someone raises the cry that the courts are getting behind in their work—perhaps someone in this House—and the expedient is then employed, perhaps at the beginning of the term when there are a lot of judges in town, of putting all the judges down on one list.
    Solicitors suddenly see cases melting like snow before a rather wintry sun. They see their cases going into the lists very quickly, and know they are not going to be ready in time to appear for trial. The result is that they ask for the case to be adjourned on the grounds that they are not ready, and the judge not unnaturally says " With all these statements in the papers about delay, it is an astonishing thing to find people coming forward asking for their cases to be adjourned. It is quite monstrous and we will not allow an adjournment." It is not unnatural that criticism like that should he made, but it makes it exceedingly difficult for litigants, and the cause of that is that the rhythm can be speeded up by degrees, but it cannot suddenly be accelerated without causing confusion and upset. The great advantage of this Measure is that by having these additional judges rhythm will gradually be speeded up and maintained in the future at a proper rate, which the judges with their few numbers have not been able to do so far.
    There is one other matter on which I should like to touch. I hope that the creation of these new judges will do away with the idea that all of us have known for so many years that the time of the court is more important than the time of
    1738
    the litigants. Judges—here again, no criticism can be attached—naturally resent being unemployed for an hour or so. In fact, it is better for them to remain unemployed for a short time rather than that the litigants should have to go to the trouble and difficulty of getting expensive witnesses to the court, and then keeping them there for a day or so. I feel that is a most important matter, and very often the expense lies chiefly with the litigant and far outbalances the expenditure of a judge who is idle for a short period of time.
    This Measure will be of estimable benefit to assizes. On my own circuit, the south—eastern circuit, which is the only one of which I can speak, one of our difficulties has always been that crime has taken up so much time that it has been impossible to give more than a day or so to the civil work. What happens? If there is a list of about 13 civil cases to be tried, the judge, having come to the end of his crime, puts all those civil cases into the list in the hope that some of them will be settled. He may be able to deal with about half of them, the remainder to go over to the next assizes or to the next assize town. That has been the cause of a tremendous amount of additional expense to litigants.
    I have known cases which have been in assize lists for three successive assizes without being heard, and that has been due to the fact that at some towns judges do not get long enough to sit and have not any assistance. We hope that may now be remedied, for it carries with it the difficulty that when a solicitor, knowing there will be a delay like that, puts his case in the High Court list, he always runs the risk of being told it ought to have been tried at the place whence it came.
    I should like to say a word about the suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I find myself in complete disagreement with him in regard to a probationary period for judges. That would be an entirely undignified procedure. It would be extraordinary to have a judge sitting, if I may say so, with not only the court of appeal over his head, but the thought that if he did not satisfy he might be removed from his position. In fact, there is what might be called a probationary period in existence

    1739
    at present in the appointment of commissioners of assize. If the Lord Chancellor desires to see whether a particular King's Counsel is the sort of person whom he desires to put upon the Bench. he can appoint him a commissioner of assize, when he has ample opportunity to study him. I can see no necessity for anything of the nature suggested by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
    There is one thing which the hon. Gentleman said with which I find myself in complete agreement, and that is the disparity between the salaries paid to county court and High Court judges. I take the view that both should be increased, but I entirely agree that the case for increasing the salaries of county court judges is much stronger than the case for increasing the salaries of High Court judges. It is quite right to say that nowadays county court judges try cases of the utmost importance to the litigant.
    I suppose about 50 per cent. of their business is taken up with cases under the Rent Restriction Acts. Because the rateable value is small, they are known as small cases, but they are of the greatest importance to the litigant. When I hear, as sometimes I do, cases of what are known as " greater hardship " being tried by county court judges, where the landlord on one side and the tenant on the other are trying to establish a case of greater hardship and the result will determine whether the tenant will be evicted or the landlord fail to obtain possession of the house, I often wonder how the judge can come to a decision, the whole thing is so difficult and heart—rending. There was a very strong case, when jurisdiction was raised some years ago, for the county court judges' salaries to be increased from £1,000 to £2,000. I feel that when one considers present—day circumstances that is a pittance. It is remarkable that we have found such able men as we have to do these jobs at that salary.
    I do not think there is any further matter that I can add to what I have said. Like everyone else, I welcome this Measure. In some respects it is the first instalment of the debt which this country owes to perhaps the finest judicial system in the world, and, if I may say so with becoming modesty, to the lawyers who have built it up.
    5.48 p.m.
    Mr. Janner: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but it is rather important that the view of those who are daily in contact with the courts—we have heard some of those views expressed today —and particularly solicitors who have the conduct of proceedings in their hands from day to day and to whom the difficulties of the present day, which arise through lack of a sufficient number of judges, are so well known, should be heard on this Measure.
    I am not at all sure that the number of judges which it is proposed shall be the maximum number available for the county courts under this Bill will be sufficient, even after this Bill is passed. I would ask the Attorney—General to consider that point very carefully and see whether it would not be possible, in so far as the expedition of justice is concerned, to enable men who are concerned in cases to be utilised to the best advantage. The trouble in the courts today is not only that counsel and solicitors are delayed, but also that witnesses, who are kept on tenterhooks from day to day, have in many cases left very important jobs in order to come to court. Men engaged in very important industrial work, such as builders, for example, sometimes have to be kept waiting day after day for considerable periods to be called to the court. When they eventually come to the court, they may be kept waiting still further for the hearing. That is a very serious position, and it can be avoided only if the date of the hearing is fixed as nearly as can be.
    One appreciates that the date of hearing a case cannot always be fixed precisely. The case is not always heard on the day for which it is set down. This is because previous cases have taken longer than was expected, but the fixing of the day can be done within a reasonable margin of certainty. Even if the judge has to rise earlier because his list is finished, the amount of cost thrown on the country would be very well worth what we get in return. The time and expense saved to witnesses, solicitors and other people would easily outbalance that cost. Not only should we have the additional judges now suggested, but we probably need to have more judges still. The

    1741
    Attorney—General many consider it advisable to put the limit of these appointments at a larger maximum so as to leave open the possibility of more judges being appointed at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor.
    Reference has been made to county court judges and the cases they have to try. The majority of those cases require considerable consideration. Consider, for example, those which relate to rent restriction matters and involve the question of hardship. When deciding such matters, the judge may have to keep his eye on the list which he has still to try and therefore he cannot always give the fullest attention to the case before him. That is undesirable. A judge should have a free mind in regard to time and should be able to give the utmost attention necessary to cases which affect the inmost lives of the litigants who come before him. The judge also has to consider what will happen to people whose cases will have to be adjourned to the next court, perhaps a month later, if he is not able to complete his list. It is therefore highly essential that as many judges as possible should be available, particularly in the county courts. I am pleased that the proposals now before us are a step forward in the right direction. They are obviously acceptable to all hon. Members present.
    The other point I1 wish to put relates to help which will be given to counsel, and to solicitors vis—à—vis counsel, when the number of judges is increased. Every practising solicitor knows that you can never be sure of the attendance of counsel. He may be engaged in two or three courts at the same time because a number of his cases happen to be in the list. He does not know in advance exactly when they will come on. Not only solicitors but litigants themselves feel very upset when they cannot have the counsel whom they wanted to appear on their behalf. Increasing the number of judges should enable the lists to be fixed. Instead of counsel taking on two or three cases for the same day, he should now be in a position to decide the case in which he will appear.
    It is important that such points as this should be kept in mind in dealing with these matters. We should always remember the practical difficulties which stand in the way of expeditious litigation, and
    1742
    the undue burdens that they put upon all concerned and upon the country in respect of the time unnecessarily taken up. I think we all agree that this Measure is overdue, that if possible the maximum number of the judges whom it is intended to appoint shall be used, and that a higher limit should be fixed on the number who can be appointed.
    5.58 p.m.
    Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member for Leicester, North—West (Mr. Janner) spoke of the kernel of this matter when he said it was undesirable that litigants should be kept waiting a long time before knowing the decision. I could not help thinking that he was speaking with some feeling in that matter. I think that he called forth an echo from some of his hon. Friends, who have that unfortunate experience almost every night of their lives. The hon. Gentleman did what most of his hon. Friends had also done and that is to state categorically their faith in our system of justice, and then to make comments about it which showed that their faith was not quite 100 per cent. He referred to cases in which he said judges were not able to give proper attention because one eye was on the cases waiting in the list. I do not believe that any substantial section of our judges fail to give their minds to the case before them.
    I want to take up one or two points made by other hon. Members opposite, including the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.—Colonel Lipton), who said that the result of the Bill would be that judges would do less work for the same pay. That is a complete misunderstanding of the position. The appointment of more judges means that more work will be done, and it is completely false for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to represent that only the same amount of ground will be covered for the same pay for each individual judge. I can only suppose that the hon. and gallant Member did not understand the real effect of the increase.
    The Attorney—General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I do not share the view about the salaries that some of my hon. Friends do—I have said something about it—but, of course, the increase in the number of

    1743
    judges will enable judges to work proper hours and not the long hours which they now have to work.
    Mr. Marlowe: It must inevitably follow that if there are more judges sitting, they will get through more work. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to controvert that point. I am not dealing with salaries at all at the moment. I am dealing with the position that a large amount of the work was covered by commissioners and that it is intended to reduce the number of commissioners and increase the number of judges. Therefore, the argument that they will do less work for the same pay is utterly fallacious.
    I want to take up the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton, who said that he did not approve of judicial comment from the Bench with regard to any particular matter of law or fact upon which they felt inclined to make pronouncements. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite very much resent it when anyone suggests that a regulation or control which they have put in force is commented upon adversely from the Bench. They are always touchy on this matter. However, I must record my view that it is utterly wrong to make protests against such judicial pronouncements. I consider that if something in the course of a case comes to his notice to which he thinks the attention of the public ought to be drawn, it is right and proper that a judge should make judicial comment on it so that the necessary action can be taken.
    Mr. S. Silverman rose—
    Mr. Marlowe: I shall have something to say about the unworthy and contemptible speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in a little while, and will give way to him then. The point I wish to make is one which has been illustrated more than once by the Minister of Health, who deeply resents judicial comment. Only a few days ago in this House, when his attention was drawn to a comment from the Bench with regard to an appeal to the court from the rent tribunals, the right hon. Gentleman, as hon. Members will recall, struck what I call his best Nuremberg Rally attitude and said, " This is the House of Commons," indicating his
    1744
    disapproval of judicial comment from the Bench.
    Mr. Silverman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Marlowe: I will give way to the hon. Member later. He must understand that he occupies quite enough of the time of this House and that some time must be taken by others. I shall give way to him in due course. As the hon. Gentleman will wish in due course to comment on what I have to say about his speech, it will be much more convenient if he first hears it than if I give way now.
    The Minister of Health is notorious for not having a great love for the functions of the court. I hope that this addition to the judicial Bench will enable him to reconsider the position of an appeal in the rent tribunal cases, because when there are more judges there will be more opportunity to take those cases to the High Court.
    I now want to turn for a moment to what has been said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I am sorry that he has now left the Chamber, but he had due notice while he was here that I would comment on his speech. I want, first of all, to say that he was utterly illogical and inconsistent, because he supported the general principle that commissioners were, generally speaking, a second—best device, and that it was better to have judges than commissioners where possible, and then he went on to advocate a system of permanent commissioners and what he called his " probationary system " which could only be a system of appointing commissioners and then dismissing them if they turned out to be unsatisfactory. He was, therefore, utterly inconsistent in that.
    He then misrepresented the position with regard to the suggestion that the number of judges might be increased from the four which may be in immediate contemplation. We are told that two judges are in immediate contemplation, and possibly four, and that the maximum number permitted by the Bill, which is six, might be used if the recommendation of the Evershed Committee with regard to the fixing of dates for cases was put into operation. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that he disapproved of that because—this was a complete misrepresentation of the position —it would keep two judges permanently

    1745
    unemployed. I took those words down because they struck me as being so completely fallacious. It is not proposed to keep two judges permanently unemployed. The idea of the extra two is that they should be in reserve, as it were, so that they can be employed as and when required at any point. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and asked what he would think if the same principle was applied to miners. The hon.' Member for Nelson and Colne was deliberately misrepresenting the position in order to make a political point which was totally unworthy of the Debate.
    The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne went on to abuse the privilege of speaking in this House by making a general attack upon the Bench which I consider was utterly contemptible, and in particular he made reference to a judge who was identifiable by reason of a quotation which the hon. Member made. I think that, altogether, the speech he made upon that aspect was both offensive and contemptible.
    I want to turn now to a Question which we have canvassed to some extent this afternoon, that of judges' salaries. While I take the view that there is a case for an increase in the salaries of both county court and High Court judges, I do not share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage) that there is a stronger case for the county court judges than for the High Court judges. I believe that the reverse should be the position in view of the fact that the county court judges have had an increase in recent years. It has been said rather loosely in the House today that it is 100 years since the salaries of the High Court judges were fixed. Hon. Members might be interested to know that the present rates were fixed in 1831. Nobobdy will dispute that there has been a substantial rise in the cost of living since 1831 and a somewhat heavier incidence of taxation since those spacious days. That alone makes it a prima facie case for investigation.
    I speak with some feeling on this matter because I have raised it almost every Session since the war and at Question time I have brought up this matter with almost dismal regularity over the
    1746
    last five or six years. I have always been totally unsuccessful. There is one aspect of it which the House ought to understand fully because it relates to what I describe as a broken pledge by the Government. Last year the Government gave a pledge that the salaries would be increased during that year, but nothing has been done about it. That reinforces my argument that there is a good case for it. The case has been admitted by the Treasury. On 3rd May last year, I put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about these increases. The Question was answered by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I hope that nothing that he has said in this connection is in any way responsible for his departure from the Government Front Bench.
    On that occasion the Financial Secretary to the Treasury assured me that this matter was under consideration and was being dealt with. I pressed him on it and, in a supplementary question, I asked him when these salaries would be put into effect. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) replied:
    " Legislation will be necessary, and I think I can promise the House that that legislation will not be long delayed it will certainly he this year."—[OFFiciAL REPORT. 3rd May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 814.]
    There could be no stronger admission that the case was justified, because the Treasury were admitting at that time not only that it was justified but that the legislation for it would be introduced last year.
    As we know, that legislation was not introduced, and I therefore put this matter again to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 28th March this year and asked when this promise would be implemented. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, by some of those casuistries which some of us do not follow as easily as he does, explained that what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had said last year did not mean what everybody else understood it to mean. Nothing could have been plainer when the Financial Secretary said it last year, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose ingenuity is unbounded in these things, proceeded to explain that it did not mean anything of the sort. When I pressed the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he said it was not a promise to introduce legislation to increase salaries and, when we asked what

    1747
    it meant, he said it only meant that we might introduce legislation last year without in fact putting salaries up. Even if the words were capable of that interpretation—
    Mr. Julius Silverman: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy—Speaker, is it in order to discuss the salaries of judges on this Motion?
    Mr. Pickthom: We have done nothing else all day.
    Mr. Silverman: That may be so, but it does not make the Debate any more in order.
    Mr. Pickthom: Yes, it does.
    Mr. Silverman: The Bill does not say anything about salaries.
    Mr. Deputy—Speaker (Major Milner): It is suggested that there would be an increase on the Consolidated Fund for judges' salaries, and it seems to me to be competent, on the Second Reading of a Bill to increase the number, that the salaries paid to those at present sitting or who may hereinafter be appointed should be discussed. That seems to me to be in order.
    Mr. Marlowe: If the hon. Gentleman who interrupted had been here, he would know that we have been discussing practically nothing else all this afternoon. I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman has had his orders to be in here well before ten o'clock, and that he has just arrived. I might say this to the hon. Gentleman, that I quite understand him interrupting when I am attacking the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite capable of looking after himself without his assistance.
    On this point—and it is a serious point —when a Government spokesman says that legislation will certainly—and that is the word I emphasise—be introduced this year and the legislation is not introduced, we are entitled to know why the Government have broken that pledge. I pray that in aid as strong evidence that the case is made out. There are many other ways in which it is not difficult to prove this case.
    On one occasion when I raised this matter in the short moment when it is possible to do so interrogatively in a sup-
    1748
    plementary question, I brought to the notice of the House a case of which I had first—hand knowledge. It concerned a judge who was trying a prisoner at the Old Bailey. The prisoner was released on bail for the night when the court adjourned at the end of the day. When this High Court judge was on his way home, the position being such as it is he could only go home by bus. He found himself in the bus sitting next to the prisoner he was trying. On the occasion when I last brought this to the notice of the House in the previous Parliament —not this present Parliament, which is a little better behaved in view of the more proportioned balance of numbers—that story brought howls of delight from hon. Members opposite who thought that was a fair example of fair shares for all.
    However, I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand the importance of keeping up the dignity of the Bench. It is impossible for a High Court judge to discharge his functions properly if he knows that during the day he will sit on the Bench with a prisoner in the dock before him and later in the evening may be sitting side by side with the prisoner in the bus. [Laughter.] It is the sort of thing which has the distressing effect of making hon. Gentlemen opposite think it is funny.
    Mr. McGovern: The story is funny.
    Mr. Marlowe: I do not think it is funny. I think it is tragic that a person occupying that high and dignified position should be forced into that undignified situation. I am bound to revert to the argument of the hon. Member for Nelson and Collie, because here again he grossly misrepresented the position. He argued, why should there be an increase for High Court judges when there has been no increase for Cabinet Ministers? That is not true, because Cabinet Ministers have had an increase by the use of cars placed at their disposal. This goes to the root of the question with which I am dealing now, that is, conveyances home. Cabinet Ministers have cars with drivers, and I suppose the cost of maintaining a car and driver is probably not less than £2,000 a year—
    Mr. Deputy—Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is going far too wide. There must be some limit to the extent of the discussion.
    Mr. Marlowe: I will not pursue that further, in deference to what you say, Mr. Deputy—Speaker. I was only countering the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, who misrepresented the position when he said there had been no increase. I say that a car and a driver, which is worth probably something in the region of £2,000 a year, is a substantial increase, an increase which the High Court judges have been denied. It is just because they have been denied that sort of increase that the undignified situation of the incident I have related to the House occurred. If the High Court judges could have the increase comparable to that which Cabinet Ministers have had, and which I rate at least at £2,000 a year—there are, as we all know, other perquisites of even greater value, but I limit it to that—I certainly should not object.
    There is really no answer to the case which can be made out for the judges. It is only sought to be defended now by the Treasury on the basis of the wage freeze, which again is an untenable argument. I will challenge any hon. Gentleman opposite to find any trade union member whose wage was frozen at the level of 1831. This is quite a different case and has nothing to do with the wage freeze.
    When I last raised this matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would receive attention when the economic circumstances of the country permit. One knows perfectly well that the annual increase would not cost a great deal, so quite obviously the economic circumstances of the country do permit that much at present. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman means, of course, is that he dare not do this because he knows that it will at once break down his wage freeze policy. As I am not a supporter of wage freezing in any form, however, he cannot expect me to help him in that. That is why I feel that we are entitled to press here and now that this very important matter should receive the attention of the Government before many weeks are past.
    6.20 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: The hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) will recollect that I have in past Sessions of Parliament supported the plea
    1750
    made on both sides of the House for a reconsideration of judicial salaries, but I do not consider that the case for such a review has been very much advanced by the rather unfortunate speech to which we have just listened.
    The hon. and learned Member is far too free in misrepresenting statements that have been made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. I want to refer to two instances. The hon. and learned Member challenged a remark of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Session of the last Parliament with regard to a reconsideration of this subject. Personally, I do not think it would be a bad thing if legislation were introduced which did not specifically alter judicial salaries but which gave the Government power to do it by Order in Council, because the amount should be capable of variation from time to time. I certainly thought that the statement by the Chancellor was capable of that interpretation and I should have thought that if legislation of that kind were introduced it would have been quite appropriate. After all, by this Bill the House is merely being asked to sanction a permitted increase in the number of judges. It remains for the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to determine from time to time whether, in fact, those powers will be exercised.
    Secondly, the hon. and learned Member made a quite unjustifiable attack on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health with regard to some observations which, I thought, my right hon. Friend had quite properly made. The hon. and learned Member referred to a Question which was asked a few days ago, suggesting that there should be a right of appeal in certain cases from the rent tribunals, and quoted an observation by one of His Majesty's judges. I have never thought that there was any case for giving a right of appeal in rent tribunal cases. Hon. Members will know that in many cases where a right of appeal exists under the Rent Acts, the appeal is generally entered, not on its merits, but merely in order to gain time. The consensus of opinion of this House and another place was that it was undesirable to give a right of appeal in rent tribunal cases. That was the considered view of this House.

    1751
    I think that judges are perfectly entitled on occasion to make observations on matters which they regard as of social importance, but it is not fitting for the Opposition then to refer to those remarks in this House as if they were some authoritative pronouncement critical of the Government. It is for this House, as the legislature, to decide what the law of the land shall be, and it is for the judges to interpret it.
    Mr. Hay: May I remind the hon. Member that in the Question which has been mentioned, I put the suggestion that there should be an appellate tribunal to which local rent tribunals could go, and I supported the case by the very weighty authority of the Lord Chief Justice to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred. I got a very short and, I thought. rude answer.
    Mr. Fletcher: I thought that the answer which the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) received was very apt. The answer was that this was the House of Commons. The question whether there should or should not be a right of appeal in those cases had been decided by Parliament after due consideration and debate. I certainly agree with the sentiment of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I think it is almost an impertinence for one of His Majesty's judges to express an opinion of that kind after this House has so recently reached a decision.
    Mr. Manningham—Buller: On a point of Order. Is it not out of Order for the hon. Member to say, with reference to a particular judge, that he thinks that an observation of that particular judge was an impertinence?
    Mr. Deputy—Speaker: If the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), made that reference as a criticism of a particular judge, I think that that would be so, and the remarks should be withdrawn.
    Mr. Fletcher: I unhesitatingly withdraw any remark of mine which was intended as being critical of any particular judge. The point I was trying to make was that in regarding the respective func— tions of the judiciary and the legislature, the legislature has its functions and the judiciary has its functions. After Parliament has passed an Act of Parliament
    1752
    deciding what the law of the land should be—in this particular case as to whether cr not there should be an appeal from the rent tribunal—it seems to me that for the judiciary to criticise the decision of Parliament is a departure from the functions of the judiciary. I hope, Mr. Deputy—Speaker, that in expressing that and in trying—
    Mr. Manningham—Buller: On a further point of Order. This is clearly meant to be a reflection—
    Mr. Deputy—Speaker: Order! There has been a great deal of latitude in the Debate, and the hon. Member for Islington, East, has withdrawn the point which he made. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham—Buller), will not proceed with his point of Order, because I do not think that the matter is really of such gravity that it requires intervention.
    Mr. Scholefield Allen: On a point of Order. Do I understand that His Majesty's judges, county court judges and any stipendiary magistrate may express an opinion however detrimental, about what this House has done, and that this House, even by inference, cannot refer to such opinions?
    Mr. Deputy—Speaker: I did not give the matter that broad definition, but it is clear that the acts of certain persons who occupy judicial offices are not subject to criticism in this House except by means of a substantive Motion. That is the position.
    Mr. Allen: Does that apply—
    Mr. Deputy—Speaker: Order! I cannot enter into a discussion with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Member for Islington, East, is on his feet, and I must call upon him.
    Mr. Fletcher: I will not pursue the point, but in view of the very severe censure of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and in view of the way in which this matter has been raised, it seemed to me necessary from these benches to say something about the right of Parliament to decide what the law of the land should be.
    Having said that, may I add that I have always attached the greatest importance to our having an absolutely impartial, fearless, independent judiciary, and for

    1753
    that reason in past Sessions I have urged that there should be a review of judicial salaries. I believe it is very necessary that we should be able to recruit and attract to the Bench people of the highest possible calibre and intellectual capacity. Therefore, I have always urged—the hon. and learned Member for Hove will agree —that, judicial salaries not having been reviewed since 1831, there is an overwhelming case for their reconsideration. I sincerely hope that, as a result of the discussion here tonight, the Government will not be afraid of dealing with this long overdue matter.
    I, like all other hon. Members, support the immediate objects of the Bill, because I am convinced that in the interests of justice it is very desirable that there should be an increase in the numbers on the judicial Bench. The cost attaching to these proposed additional appointments is practically negligible in comparison with the principle involved. It is now recognised that it is in the interests both of justice and economy that cases in the courts should be tried expeditiously, even though that may mean that some judges are, perhaps, idle for a number of hours a week. That is a much lesser evil than that large numbers of litigants, solicitors and counsel should be kept waiting interminably.
    I think it is recognised that one of the greatest contributions that can be made, both to expedition in dealing with matters in the High Court and also reducing costs of litigation, would be a system of fixed dates of trials. Such a system depends upon having a larger number of judges, because it is only if more judges are available that it would be possible to have sufficient flexibility to introduce a system of fixed dates cf trials. I hope that with the passage of this Bill there will be an increased number of judges in the interests of litigants and justice generally.
    6.30 p.m.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: I have heard a great deal of this Debate and, in my opinion, no one has gone to the root of the matter. The wave of crime and the consequent need of extra judges is entirely due to five years of Socialist philosophy which, in practice, has demoralised the people of this country and led to the increase of crime for which the extra judges are necessary.
    1754
    That great thinker and provoker of thought, Dean Inge, has said:
    " The rights to life and liberty and the enjoyment of property, lawfully come by and conscientiously used, have for 2,000 years been regarded as the natural rights secured by the laws of nature which are older and more sacred than any human enactments. A Government which transgresses these natural rights has no moral claim on the obedience of its citizens."
    I am not a lawyer, but I think that. broadly speaking, the only job a Government has is to punish the citizens of a country for breaking one of the Ten Commandments. But this Government, in peacetime, in order to secure increasing power over the people, has 25,417 commandments. The consequence is that anyone, even the Attorney—General—who, if I am not out of order, I will describe as the best of a bad bunch—would be a black marketeer, at a pinch. Suppose the law was that a man must not give more than a shilling for a loaf of bread and his wife was starving. If he came to me and said, " Waldron, if you put a loaf of bread through the scullery window every night I shall leave two shillings under the front door mat every afternoon," of course he would do it, and it would be right.
    All these regulations, in their attempt to gain power over our people. have made it much easier to break the Jaw and no one realises the amount of black marketing which is going on. That is the reason for the increase in crime and for the increased need for more judges. I hope that everyone will realise that this Bill is a condemnation of the philosophy of Socialism.
    6.34 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I fail to follow the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), who seems to assume that the wave of crime is due to Socialist rule. When I apply that argument to Scotland I find that the wave of crime has receded—
    Sir W. Smithers: So has Socialism.
    Mr. Hughes: It has been seriously argued by hon. Members opposite that we must have high salaries for judges because it is undignified for them to have lesser salaries. The hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) argued that it was undignified for a judge to

    1755
    travel in a bus. I assume that if it is undignified for a judge to travel in a bus for fear of meeting people he may have had before him in court, it is also undignified for a judge to walk. What is to become of judges? Are we to incarcerate them in monasteries, or put them in glass cases? How are they to keep in touch with the feelings and emotions of ordinary people?
    When I hear high salaries being justified on the ground that they must be paid so as to get people of judicial experience, I want to turn the attention of the House to what happens in Scotland. I do not think the Attorney—General would dare to argue that the judicial calibre—
    Mr. Speaker: We must stick to England.
    Mr. Hughes: I am aware that Scotland is not in the Bill. If this Bill had applied to Scotland. it would have met with strenuous opposition from Scottish Members, because in Scotland, judges get only £3,600 a year. I suggest that when it is argued that we need to pay £25 a week more to guarantee justice in England and Scotland, hon. Members have a wrong sense of social values. I will not mention Scotland again, but I suggest that even at a salary of £3,600 per year a very large number of capable and experienced applicants would come forward who would prefer this line and remuneration to some of the less lucrative but more hard—worked professions. The Financial Memorandum states:
    " The salary of a puisne judge of the High Court is fixed by statute at £5,000 a year and his pension at £3,500 a year."
    I believe that the pension rights are rather high. From what I gather, the age of retirement of High Court judges is also very high. They carry on until they are over 90, and I fail to see that a pension of £3,500 a year is justifiable from the point of view of our talking of national economy. The Memorandum also states that
    "the salary of a judge's clerk is £650 a year."
    Why is there so much difference between the salary of a High Court judge and of the judge's clerk? Surely the judge's clerk must be a very experienced person; perhaps he does the hardest work in the court. He certainly needs just as
    1756
    much food as the judge, and he has to buy his striped trousers and his black coat in the same market. There is no mention of the judge's clerk getting a pension. I ask the Attorney—General to tell us what rate of pension the judge's clerk, who gets £650 a year, gets. I believe that in this Debate at any rate we have got our social values all wrong.
    6.38 p.m.
    The Attorney—General: I can speak again only with the leave of the House, and if I have that leave I shall try not to keep the House too long.
    We have had an interesting and, with one notable but not surprising exception, a friendly discussion about this small but not unimportant Bill. I was impressed by the general consensus of opinion that it would not be enough to appoint only two judges in the first instance. That point was made by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham—Buller), the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House. The reason there is a reference to two judges in the Financial Resolution is that the Lord Chancellor, in another place, gave an express undertaking that there would be an immediate appointment of two; but, speaking from my experience at the Bar, I have little doubt that hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House are right in thinking that it will quickly be necessary to make at least two of the other appointments. When further consideration has been given to the matter and to the views expressed in the course of this Debate, I do not doubt that that view will be taken. After all, it is much better to have a slight margin of judicial strength than to have too few judges. Speaking for myself, my own impression is that we shall need four judges at once, and I hope that it will not be too long before we need the six. It is better to have too many than too few.
    We have in the past allowed our administration of justice to be too restricted by misconceived fears as to the expense and cost of having too many judges. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) gave a striking instance of cases which are put into the list, particularly at the assize towns, long before they are likely to be reached; and the waste of time and money and the frustration

    1757
    caused by overloading lists or by putting cases in before they can be reached is difficult to estimate but it is no doubt enormous. The cost to the State of appointing extra judges to cope with the situation seems to me to be completely insignificant by comparison.
    Moreover, I fully agree with the point which I think was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), that the result, I do not say the intention, of putting too many cases into the assize list day by day, " cracking the list " it is called on my circuit, is to compel parties to settle cases because they simply cannot afford the time or money or indeed the anxiety of waiting about the courts day after day until their cases are called on. Moreover, I agree with the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North—West (Mr. Janner) that it is inimical to justice that the judge should have to have one eye on the case he is trying and the other eye on the clock. Cases ought to be brought on quickly in the sense that they ought to come into the list for trial quickly, but when they are under trial there ought to be no sense of hurry and of getting one case through in order to get to the next case or to finish the civil list at the assize.
    The hon. Member for Stockport, South (Sir A. Gridley) made some reference to the work being done by the committee and the various sub—committees presided over by Lord Justice Evershed. I should like, if I may without impertinence, to pay tribute to the most important work which is being done by that committee. It is work which involves a large number of people, lawyers and laymen alike, devoting a great deal of time voluntarily to the rather unexciting task of working out a more convenient, more expeditious and cheaper organisation for our administration of justice. The results already have been most encouraging and most useful, and I hope that when the final report is made and comes to be implemented it will result in a great improvement in our general judicial machinery.
    The hon. Member for Stockport, South, also referred to the shortage of building accommodation in provincial towns and in London. It is true that one of the limiting factors is the absence, both in
    1758
    London and some provincial towns, of really suitable court accommodation for additional judges. There is indeed, even at the Royal Courts of Justice, partly owing to war damage, a shortage of courts during the time, certainly a very short time, when all the judges are concentrated in London and before they go on circuit. My own view is that, difficult as the building situation is, that ought not to delay the much—needed increase in the number of judges.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) and other bon. Members have made reference to the question of the judges' remuneration. I must say of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Hove that the intemperance with which he put the case in this matter has, I am afraid—and I am really sorry about it because in many respects I share his view about this matter—done great harm to the prospects of increasing the judges' salaries. The point which seems to me to be of importance in this matter, and I have not hesitated to express my opinion about this during several years past, is that the present salaries which are paid to the judges are quite out of scale in comparison with the amounts which are earned in business and in the professions, both national and private. They are out of conformity, as I think I put it, with the general salaries structure of the country. That is significant for the reason—I am not now putting it on the ground of hardship—that the salaries paid to judges ill reflect the high status and complete independence of the judicial office.
    I should have thought that quite clearly this is unfortunately not the moment when it will be possible to contemplate immediate increases, and, as I said in moving the Second Reading, when the time does come that the circumstances of the country make it possible to increase remuneration, there are other cases of actual hardship which will entitle them to prior consideration. There are obviously many classes of people in the community who are, on their merits, entitled to higher remuneration than they are now receiving. I should have felt much more impressed by the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Hove if I had heard him make an impassioned appeal, such as he made on

    1759
    behalf of the judges, on behalf of, for example, the railwaymen, teachers or miners, whose position is causing much greater hardship than that suffered by the judges.
    Moreover, I am quite certain, and this is why I said that the hon. and learned Member had done a disservice to the case —and there is a case—for increasing in due time the salaries of the judges, that His Majesty's judges would not at this time wish to give an example of claiming higher remuneration when those in the more humble positions which I have indicated are agreeing to show sacrifice and restraint.
    Mr. Marlowe: The reason I did not make an impassioned appeal for the miners and railwaymen on this occasion is that this Bill does not relate to them. I made an impassioned appeal on behalf of the judges, and the Attorney—General will recall that at the same time I made it clear that I do not believe in the wage freeze for the miners, railwaymen or anyone else.
    The Attorney—General: If the hon. and learned Member had listened a little more carefully he would have appreciated that I said that I should have been more impressed by the impassioned appeal which he made on this occasion—his rather intemperate appeal—in respect of judicial saLries—had I heard him on other occasions making equally impassioned appeals on behalf of other people whose position is obviously the cause of much more immediate hardship.
    Mr. Marlowe: I have frequently done so.
    The Attorney—General: I do not propose to pursue the matter further, except to add that I should have thought that when the time does come for increasing judicial salaries, there is no doubt that county court judges would be entitled to prior consideration. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) in the emphasis he attached to that matter and the great disparity that exists at present between the remuneration of High Court judges and the remuneration of county court judges.
    Mr. Brendan Bracken: And their responsibilities.
    The Attorney—General: Well, no. I am not sure that it is really quite right to draw a distinction between the responsibilities of the two. The responsibilities of all judges are great. It is true that the responsibility of the county court judges may be distinguished from those of the High Court judges by reason of the fact that they do not normally try criminal cases as county court judges, though often they do as chairmen of their quarter sessions, and by reason of the fact that their jurisdiction is limited to smaller amounts of money.
    But the cases that come before the county court judges are just as difficult to decide, and just as important to the litigants, as the cases in other courts involving larger sums of money. I do not think it is right to say there is a great distinction between the responsibilities of High Court judges and the responsibilities of county court judges. Both occupy positions of great responsibility, and I was glad to hear the tribute paid to the county court judges who discharge, as I think, a most important duty in a most important court, the status of which ought to receive much greater recognition than it does. I should be sorry if anything was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) which seemed to disparage the status of what I think is a vitally important court in the judicial system of this country.
    Mr. Bracken: The right hon. and learned Gentleman really must not attribute those remarks to me. I said there was a difference between the responsibilities of the High Court judges and the county court judges, just as there is a difference between the Attorney—General and the attorney—general who is employed by the Duchy of Lancaster or the attorney—general of the County Palatine of Durham.
    The Attorney—General: The responsibility of a judge is to administer justice according to the law. Both High Court judges and county court judges have a very difficult task, and I think it is invidious to draw any distinction between either.
    Mr. Bracken: It has been done for generations.
    The Attorney—General: I was drawing attention to the fact that the disparity was perhaps too great and that. if any

    1761
    priority is to be given the salaries payable to county court judges would demand review in priority to those of the High Court judges.
    The hon. Member for Henley has had great experience of appearing before county court judges, and no doubt of instructing counsel before High Court judges, and I think the point he made was very well taken. I would only add this in regard to the question of judicial remuneration: I take, and I have always taken, the view—and I have not concealed it—that I think at the appropriate time the salaries ought to be increased, but we ought not to over—emphasise this point. Perhaps I should add that the judicial office has great attractions other than its pay. It is an office of great importance and dignity and those who accept it occupy a position of great significance in the service of the law and the State. I do not think anybody becomes a judge, or would wish to become a judge, nor would this House wish them to become judges, for the money they get out of the job.
    I would say a word about the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne in regard to the quality of the judges. I can speak only from a personal experience going back to 1924, but one can form some judgment of these matters from the books and reports which one has to read. I cannot share the view that the judicial capacity of the judges, the " judicial quality " I think my hon. Friend called it, is, as he put it, " not improving." I would quite definitely take the opposite view. The appointment of judges has now been taken right out of the field of political influence, and that is a very important change which has been brought about in recent years. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will concur in saying that it is a good thing that it can now be said that judicial and legal patronage is entirely unaffected by political consideration.
    The men now being appointed are, compared with previous years, comparatively young men. I think that is a good thing. They are, as I know, selected by the Lord Chancellor with the very greatest care, and solely upon their merits. On the whole, I should have thought that the standard of quality of the judiciary—if it is not an impertinence for me to say so—has increased in recent years rather
    1762
    than declined. I think that altogether there are 45 judges in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. It may occasionally happen that one is appointed who is not quite so good as the rest. It may occasionally happen that one or two may say something which, taken out of its context and lime—lighted in the newspapers, looks rather foolish. I must say that I have had experience of how easy it is to say something which, taken out of its context and limelighted in the newspapers, looks rather foolish. But judges are human, and one cannot expect them to be entirely immune from the risk that at some time they may say something which taken out of its context and reported, may seem a little unfortunate. But I would say that the general standard is very high, and I should be very sorry to think that anyone was inclined to make any general argument from one or two particular cases towards the proposition that the standard is not as high at present as it has been in the past.
    There I come back—and this leads me to it directly—to the jarring note struck in this Debate by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hove. I thought the observation which the hon. and learned Member made about the right of judges to comment on matters of policy, which were for Parliament, was singularly ill—advised and quite unworthy of an hon. and learned Member of this House.
    Mr. Bracken: No.
    The Attorney—General: It is very well recognised, as the hon. and learned Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) so well put it, by the judges and by hon. Members on both sides of this House as a most important principle of our constitutional practice that judges do not comment on the policy of Parliament, but administer the law, good or bad, as they find it. It is a traditional doctrine on which the independence of the judiciary rests. If once that doctrine were departed from, and judges permitted themselves to ventilate from the Bench the views they might hold on the policy of the legislature, it would be quite impossible to maintain the rule that the conduct of judges is not open to criticism or question. I think it most important as a doctrine of our Constitution—which the judges certainly all recognise and

    1763
    which I should have thought any hon. learned Member of this House would recognise—that the separation of the judicial and legislative functions should be maintained, and that those engaged in the conduct of one should not criticise or canvass the conduct of the other. Each side, the judiciary and the legislature, should show proper respect for and confidence in the other. It is only in that way that the independence of both can be maintained.
    Mr. Marlowe: I never suggested otherwise.
    The Attorney-General: I hope that that tradition will be maintained, and I do not think that it is useful to discuss it further. The observation that struck me most, and I am now going to act upon it, was made by one hon. Member on this side of the House, who said that the quicker this Bill was passed into law the better; and the sooner I sit down, the earlier that result will be achieved.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.

    COAL MINING (SUBSIDENCE) [MONEY]
    Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).— [King's Recommendation signified.]
    [Colonel SIR CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
    Motion made, and Question proposed.
    " That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the carrying out of repairs and the making of payments in respect of damage affecting certain dwelling—houses and caused by subsidence resulting from the working and getting of coal and other minerals worked with coal, and for the execution of works to prevent or reduce such damage, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament

    (a) in respect of the period beginning with the passing of the said Act and ending with the thirty—first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty—two, of grants to the National Coal Board not exceeding one half of the amount of the additional expenditure incurred in that period by the Board by virtue of the said Act in or in connection with the carrying out of repairs and the making of payments in respect of subsidence damage to any dwelling—house to which the said Act applies or to any building comprising such a dwelling—house and the execution of works to prevent or reduce such damage, or one million five hundred thousand pounds, whichever is the less;

    (b) in respect of any subsequent calendar year, of grants to the National Coal Board not exceeding one half of the additional expenditure so incurred in that year, or two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, whichever is the less;

    (c) of the remuneration of any assessor summoned, or the expense of any remit made, in proceedings under the said Act.

    In this Resolution the expression ' subsidence damage' means damage caused by the withdrawal of support from land as the result of the working and getting of coal or any other mineral which is worked with coal, and the reference to subsidence damage to any dwelling—house or building shall be construed as including a reference to subsidence damage to any structure, sewer, drain or installation within the curtilage of that dwelling—house or building."—(Mr. Robens.)
    Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr.Hannan.]
    Committee Tomorrow.

    HIGH COURT AND COUNTY COURT JUDGES [MONEY]
    Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).— [King's Recommendation signified.]
    [Colonel SIR CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair] Resolved:
    " That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for increasing the number of puisine judges of the High Court and the number of judges of county courts, it is expedient to authorise

    (a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums which under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, or the County Courts Act, 1934, are payable out of that Fund; and

    (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase so attributable in the sums which, under the said Act of 1925 or the said Act of 1934, are payable out of moneys so provided."—[Mr. Jay.]

    Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.
    7.2 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Roberts: I do not know, Sir Charles, whether it would be in Order for me to move the Amendment which stands in my name, now. Perhaps it would be to the convenience of the Committee to discuss the Amendment now, and to have a more general discussion on the Money Resolution later. I should like your guidance on that point, Sir Charles.
    The Deputy—Chairman: I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we dealt with the Amendments first and then had a general discussion. That is probably the best way.
    Mr. Roberts: I beg to move, in line 14, to leave out, " one million."
    The Committee will realise that under this Resolution the charge upon the Treasury falls into two parts. The first deals with the period up to 1952, and the second deals with the period after that date. My Amendment refers only to the first part, paragraph (a), because that is the immediate problem with which we have to deal. It will be three years before we shall have to deal with the other part. I suggest that, if the Committee were to accept my Amendment in principle, then, within three years, further Amendments could be made for the later period.
    I should like to explain that this Amendment to reduce the charge upon the Treasury will automatically increase the charge upon the National Coal Board. However, I am sure that the Committee and the Minister will appreciate that, in the long run, that is not my intention. If the Committee accepted the Amendment, it would be for me to move Amendments later to remove the burden from the National Coal Board and place it upon those who I think should bear it—the local authorities and also the owners, under some form of insurance scheme. However, I imagine that I should be out of Order if I discussed that side of the matter on this Amendment.
    I should like the Committee to realise that my object is not to increase the burden upon the National Coal Board, in the long run, but, at this stage, I ask the Committee to reduce the charge upon the Treasury. I suggest that the charge of £1,500,000, which is the maximum charge upon the Treasury under this Resolution, should be reduced to £500,000. I wish to
    1766
    make it clear that I cannot support the full charge of £1,500,000 upon the Treasury at this time: It appears to me that this is a specialised subsidy to certain specialised landlords. I was rather sorry to see that the remarks which I made during the Second Reading Debate were referred to in such a laudable paper as " The Times," as being an attack on landlords. Even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power talked about " putting on armour " with regard to landlords. I do not attack the hard—pressed landlords in general, but I see no justification at present for giving special favours to certain special landlords. It is to that point that I wish to address my remarks.
    I believe most sincerely that today the taxpayer is grossly overtaxed. After the Finance Bill has become law, I consider that no more major charges should be put upon the taxpayer, at least until substantial reductions in Government expenditure have been effected. Again, I should not be in order if I were to go into detail about the substantial reductions which the Government should make. That is my first contention—that unless the Minister can make a very firm case showing why this extra charge should be put upon taxpayers at present, Members on both sides of the Committee should support my Amendment.
    I do not disagree with the principle of the Bill, which concerns the repair of houses which have subsided. but I disagree with the way in which the Minister proposes to finance those repairs by asking the taxpayer to assist. I see no reason why these people should be given a higher priority than many others who have a far greater need. Again, I do not propose to go into details, though I assure the Minister that in my constituency of Heeley there are housing conditions of a deplorable standard, the improvement of which should come before consideration of the landlords who are to be subsidised under this Bill. Also in Heeley, there are pensioners who have been hard hit by the rising cost of living and who are much more greatly in need than some of the local authorities and others who are to be subsidised.
    Therefore, I cannot let this matter pass without protest. To satisfy me, at any rate, the Minister must show that these landlords are iv— greater need and have a

    1767
    higher priority than the people I have mentioned. I cannot understand why the Minister proposes to give priority to these landlords. They have no contractual right. In fact, they have entered into contractual obligations not to receive any money if a house is let down by workings underneath the land. Although I know that some hon. Members do not agree with me, I suggest that the majority of these landlords knew the risk which they were taking.
    I have some experience of this matter, because I have been associated with concerns which owned large numbers of the houses which we are now discussing. In these areas, it is generally understood that there is a risk of subsidence, and the people who bought property usually said, " I will take the risk; it will not happen to me." In consequence, the prices of the houses which they bought have been cheaper.
    I have the support in this matter of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who I am sorry is not in his place. This matter is not new. It has been raised before; in fact, my right hon. and gallant Friend, on 17th February, 1939, referred to the hard cases which may have been unavoidable, and were due to subsidence, and went on to say that the Bill then before the House would restore to such land the right of support at the expense of somebody else. He made the further point that the risk was knowingly taken by the purchaser, and proceeded to set out many cases in which the property was thereby cheaper.
    People have taken that risk, and the right way to deal with that risk is through insurance. Here, I would quote what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas—Tooth) said on Second Reading. At one time, he seemed to be considering an insurance scheme, and I read his speech very carefully. I thought that the reason why he discarded the idea of an insurance scheme was not a very sound one—the reason that we could not always say which are coal mining areas and which are not. I am sure that that difficulty could be overcome. I wish to put it to the Committee that, first of all, there is no reason why these landlords should be given extra priority, when they entered into a con-
    1768
    tractual obligation, either taking a risk, or with their eyes open, and, secondly, in a large number of cases, this money, some of which will have to be paid by my constituents, is to be paid to local authorities which are very likely receiving rates from collieries operating in their districts.
    I know that in these coal mining areas the collieries are assessed for rating, and that they contribute through their rates to the local authorities. In fact, many of the rates of these local authorities are low because of the money which the collieries are paying. I do not see why these local authorities should be further subsidised at the expense of my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members living in non—mining areas. I think that point was established by hon. Members of the Conservative Party in 1938 and in the Debates on Bills even before then. It was a good argument, and I must put it forward to the Committee again. With great respect, I am convinced that although the Turner Committee set out the arguments, they did not arrive at the right way of achieving the object which they sought to attain.
    There is one other important point concerning the reason why I would advise hon. Members on this side of the Committee to support my Amendment. What are the motives which made the Government bring this Bill before us? My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, suggested that they were political, that they were to catch more votes. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power took up that point, and I must say that I rather agreed with what he said. On the point abou4 trying to catch political votes, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
    " I did not see the point about that, because there is not a single representative of the miners on the opposite side of the House, and there are very few, if any, hon. Members opposite whose constituents are affected in the same way as the constituents of my hon. Friends on this side, whose seats are impregnable and which will never be taken by hon. Members opposite."—f OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 903.]
    That rather points to the motive which is possibly behind the Minister's proposal. It is not a question of trying to catch votes; it is a question of giving something for services rendered, for loyal political work in the past. Frankly, I would say to hon.

    1769
    Members on this side of the Committee that I admire their disinterest in this matter. I have to look more closely into this, in the interests of my own constituents, who will receive no benefit under this Bill, but who will have to pay more for their coal and pay more in taxation. I commend the disinterested spirit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), who is prepared to put upon his constituents an extra price on coal and extra taxation to support, possibly, this loyal reward for the long services of hon. Members opposite.
    I must confess, and I shall have to confess to my constituents, that I move this reduction because I feel that they are being asked to bear a burden which they should not bear. I shall at a later stage, if I have the indulgence of the Committee and am lucky enough to be called, try to point out that there are other ways of attaining this very laudable object of keeping these houses in repair. It can be done by those who ought quite properly to bear the burden, and I say that a charge like this upon the taxpayers of the country at this time is, first of all, premature, and, secondly, unnecessary.
    7.15 p.m.
    Sir Hugh Lucas—Tooth: I am hoping to catch your eye, Sir Charles, when we come to the general discussion, but in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P.Roberts) has said about my remarks on a previous occasion, I thought it was proper that I should address the Committee on the Amendment itself.
    The Deputy—Chairman: On that point, I said that we would deal with the Amendments first and then have a general discussion. In Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a Member may speak as often as he likes. The hon. Member will not lose his chance to speak again later.
    Sir H. Lucas—Tooth: I am much obliged, Sir Charles. I would like to remind my hon. Friend, who said that I had imputed to the Government a desire to gain votes, that he was misquoting me. I said that the Government probably hoped to gain gratitude from the constituencies, which, I admit, returned supporters of the present Ministry. But gratitude and votes are not necessarily the same thing.
    Mr. Oliver: How do the electors show their gratitude?
    Sir H. Lucas—Tooth: Very often, in strange ways.
    There is a point of substance in what my hon. Friend has said, and which should be pointed out to the Committee. He has argued that the owners of property liable to suffer from mining subsidence have taken a risk with their eyes open, and that, therefore, they must accept the consequences. I think that that was the burden of my hon. Friend's argument. I think that the legal tag, perhaps more appropriate to our earlier discussion, is volenti non fit injuria, but that is not really the position at all. It was quite clear to all of us who served on the Turner Committee that in areas where there is risk of subsidence it is quite impossible, in a very large number of cases, to tell whether there is a right of compensation or not. I will not say in the majority of cases, but, in a very high proportion of cases, the person who acquires a house cannot tell in advance whether he has any risk. Therefore, we cannot say that those who obtain the houses do so with their eyes open.
    Again, my hon. Friend said that in some cases people paid less for their property because of that risk. The extraordinary thing about such property—and it was proved up to the hilt by the evidence given before the Turner Committee—is that in no case whatsoever does the risk of subsidence affect the price unless, in fact, it is quite clear that the house will literally be undermined the next day. It is a most extraordinary circumstance, but that is the position. Therefore, to argue on the basis which my hon. Friend argued is really not sound.
    The only way we can look at the matter is to say that here is a peculiar, capricious injury which is done to a very few people —probably one—tenth of 1 per cent. of property owners, taking the colliery areas as a whole. Here is something, my hon. Friend argued, which ought to be dealt with by something in the nature of insurance, and he proceeded to say that it was not right, therefore, that the public purse should pay. He went on, as he had to, to suggest some alternative. But why is it any more right that the National Coal Board should pay? Why is it any more right that the ratepayers in particular areas should pay? There is no

    1771
    logic in throwing the charge in any particular direction. I do not wish to develop my argument at great length on this matter, but I would ask my hon. Friend to reconsider his argument, because I think it is based on some misapprehension of what are the true facts of the case. If he could see his way to withdraw his Amendment, I think it would shorten the proceedings on this Resolution.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas—Tooth), for making, when seconding this Amendment, such an excellent case against it.
    Mr. Brendan Bracken: He did not second it.
    Mr. Robens: It just shows what a useful thing it sometimes is to have hon. Members of both sides on a committee dealing with these problems. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point of view he has put forward, which is contrary to that put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts).
    I think we ought to make it quite clear to the hon. Member for Heeley that he is quite wrong when he says that people living in houses which are likely to be damaged, or have been damaged, by mining subsidence are landlords. Very many of them are owner—occupiers, men working in the mining industry, who have spent their life savings on these properties. But for the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South, I would have read part of paragraph 12 and paragraph 13 of the Turner Committee's Report, which made it quite clear that by a contractual obligation the rights in these cases had been forfeited some 200 years before the houses were finally sold to the people who bought them. Therefore, it is quite wrong to think that there is a State subsidy to rich landlords in this matter. Very large numbers are owner—occupied by people in the industry who have actually taken the coal from under their own homes, and brought the houses down about their own ears.
    As the benefits of coal production have redounded to the benefit of the nation as a whole, I think it right that we should
    1772
    accept that part of the Turner CommitteP's Report which says that the National Exchequer should bear this charge. In fact, in estimating that it costs £3 million a year to deal with mining subsidence, the report recommends that £2 million should be borne by the National Exchequer. The Bill provides only for the implementation of part of the report, and, looking at the amounts involved, the Government came to the conclusion that a reasonable apportionment would be for 50 per cent. to be borne by the Exchequer and for the other 50 per cent. to be borne by the National Coal Board. I hope that in view of the speech made by the hon. Member for Hendon, South, and in view of what I have said, the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Bracken: I think the Parliamentary Secretary should correct the erroneous impression which he created when he said that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas—Tooth) seconded the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend who now sits appropriately for the new constituency of Heeley. One of the most controversial Members that this House ever had was named Healy, and, in a small way, one of the most controversial speeches I have heard for some time has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts). His position in relation to this Amendment is exactly equivalent to that of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), until he recently found other opportunities to display his talents. My hon. Friend was not speaking for the Conservative Party in this matter; the true doctrine came from the hon. Baronet.
    Mr. P. Roberts: Regretfully, I cannot accept what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) has said about where the true doctrine comes from. I accept that I am not speaking for the Conservative Party, but I also am sure that the doctrine which I am trying to put forward is the true one. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to think that if a person is an owner—occupier, he is not a landlord. I fail to understand that distinction I am willing to be corrected by a lawyer, but, so far as I>know, owner—occupiers must, of legal definition, be landlords. Therefore, I fail to appreciate that argument.

    1773
    My second point is that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas—Tooth) nor the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the question of the local authority. We hear so much about the hard case of the man who saved up his money. I agree that it is a hard case, and I want to deal with it, as I say, but in a different way. The Parliamentary Secretary did not answer the question about the local authority which has competent clerks who are no doubt well paid to look into all these things in the first case. He gave us no reason why local authorities should have this extra money. Again, I would quote to him what my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank)—and I commend this to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch—said, which was:
    " I think we would all agree that corporations, even in the most hard up parts of the country, are wealthy enough to have an experienced clerk, or, at any rate, legal advice sufficient for them to find out before they buy property for developing a housing estate whether or not the right to support exists. The argument of poor people having bought property without knowing whether or not there was a right of support cannot be called a good argument when it comes to the question of local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1939; Vol. 343, c. 2121–2.]
    I would like to have an answer to that because, as I say, my argument is—and I must reiterate it—that I see no reason why the taxpayers of my constituency should be asked to bear a charge which ought to be borne by the local authorities in the areas in which the subsidence takes place, augmented by an insurance scheme on the part of the owners of houses which might be affected. I do not ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment, but I will not withdraw it because I prefer that it should be negatived.
    Amendment negatived.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Bracken: I beg to move, in line 23, to leave out from " coal," to the end of line 26.
    The Deputy—Chairman: If the right hon. Gentleman is seeking in his Amendment to extend the scope, it is out of Order, but if he is seeking to contract, it is in Order. I do not know quite what he means.
    Mr. Bracken: In order to keep within the rules of the Committee, I should have to say it was an Amendment that would decrease rather than increase, but these are legal points. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas—Tooth) has an argument to lay before you which is completely within the rules of Order.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The argument would be more complete if we were to have a general Debate. Such arguments as I can adduce on this particular Amendment would be better put on the Resolution as a whole. They deal with the general merits of the case and it would only prejudice discussion later on if I put them forward on this Amendment. I thought, Sir Charles, that you might have ruled this Amendment out of Order as consequential, or as being in the same category as the Amendment which you did not call.
    The Deputy—Chairman: I ruled that this Amendment would be out of Order if its intention was to increase the scope, whereas if its intention was to decrease the scope, it was in Order.
    Sir H. Lucas—Tooth: I intended to put the arguments to you in the sense that we ought to have wider scope when we come to discuss the contents of the Bill. Therefore, I shall ask that you rule the Amendment out of Order so that we can come to the discussion at a later stage.
    Mr. Bracken: I think the best thing that can be done is for me to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and not to stand between the Committee and the convincing arguments that will soon be addressed to it by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.
    Sir H. Lucas—Tooth: The Resolution as it stands authorised a Government grant of 50 per cent. of the cost of compensation or of repairing damage, up to a total expenditure of £500,000 a year. It is true there are certain special provisions dealing with the first six years, but I think the generality of what I said will be accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary. After the expenditure of half

    1775
    a million pounds a year, the National Coal Board is to bear the whole cost involved. That, of course, is not. in any sense of the word, what the Turner Committee recommended.
    The principle underlying, and indeed expressly stated, in the Turner recommendation was that 100 per cent. of any new cost involved in paying compensation or in carrying out repairs should be provided out of public funds up to the estimated total of the amount to be required. It is quite true that we did recommend that if a larger sum than that estimated total had to be found that should fall on the Coal Board. But we also recommended that if a smaller sum had to be found the Board would take the advantage of that. The purpose of leaving that residual liability upon the Board was simply to give them an inducement to work their coal efficiently and to take every step they could take to avoid damage being incurred in the first place.
    As suggested on the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) it is quite inequitable to do what the Government are proposing to introduce into their scheme, that is, to throw some part of this new charge inevitably upon the Coal Board. Whether the charge is great or small, the Government are proposing to throw at least 50 per cent. of the amount on the Coal Board. They have not told us whether they estimate the total additional expenditure involved by reason of this Bill will be about £500,000 a year. I think that is the position.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel—Baker): We estimate that it will be at most £500,000. We expect it will be a little less. The Treasury grant is a maximum. If the total is more than £500,000, then the extra burden falls on the Coal Board.
    Sir H. Lucas—Tooth: The position, then, is that the Government estimate the cost of carrying out the provisions of the Bill will be something under £500,000 a year, which will be split, half each, between the Coal Board and the public purse. Let me compare the scheme of this Bill on this narrow issue of compensation with the scheme propounded by the Turner Committee. The principal difference is to throw 50 per
    1776
    cent. additional burden on to the Coal Board. I maintain that that is inequitable.
    It may sound strange to hear a Member sitting on these benches complaining about throwing an additional charge on a nationalised industry. Nevertheless, we are constantly told that a nationalised industry is not a mere Government Department, that it is a separate entity. We are not allowed to put down Questions about administration, as in the case of a Government Department. Here, we have a separate corporate body. It is true that it is not interested in the profits it makes, but, nevertheless, it represents a certain section of the community.
    Why should that particular section of the community have to bear this particular burden? If we had found the coal owners still in possession of the coal mines I should have come forward to the Committee and protested against the burden the Government proposed to throw upon them so inequitably. I do not suppose that hon. Members opposite would have done that. If this Committee, in its wisdom, decides that a certain additional amount of expenditure should be incurred for the kind of purpose contemplated in this Bill, then the House itself should be responsible for the whole of the estimated cost. I believe that this scheme is fundamentally wrong and that this Resolution, which seeks to carry out that scheme, is also fundamentally wrong.
    As the Resolution is drawn, we can only discuss the Clauses of the Bill and any Amendments we may put down, on the footing that half of the expenditure is to fall on the Coal Board. That is the inevitable result of the passing of this Resolution. What I want to do is not to add any total amount to the expenditure the Government proposes. I accept their word that they estimate that the total amount will be something of the order of £500,000, and, for the moment, I am bound to accept their proposal that the total charge they can see their way to making is half that amount—£250,000. But I think that in due course it should be open to the Committee to consider how that £250,000 is to be spent.
    There is no need whatever for this Resolution to be drawn in the kind of terms in which it is drawn. It would have been simple for the Government to have said, " Here is a quarter of a

    1777
    million pounds a year, which is the most we can afford, to help to pay for this gambit, but at any rate let us see that the money is spent in the most satisfactory way possible." I have no doubt that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee would have had proposals to make, but we are totally precluded from doing so.
    This Resolution is so drafted that it is impossible to put down an Amendment except on the basis that at least half of any expenditure involved falls on the Coal Board. We cannot say that any particular class of property is to be excluded in order to bring other classes within the amount of expenditure that the Government contemplate. We cannot, for example, say that a house and a shop together should be wholly compensated at the expense of a local authority house. Because the Government would find such arguments extremely difficult to resist, they have put down the Resolution in these terms to make it impossible for us to put down Amendments and argue that case. I think that is entirely wrong, that it is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and to the intention of Money Resolutions.
    Looking at the terms of the Resolution, I ask the Government what they really intend. What do the Government intend by the words:
    " … damage caused by the withdrawals of support…."?
    It looks to me as if the intention is simply to cover the case where there is actual physical damage to buildings or pipes or other things referred to in the Bill, by reason of subsidence. I can remember a particular case in which a small farmhouse was well situated on the banks of a canal. The farmhouse itself was not protected, but the canal was. The coal under the house was worked and the coal under the canal was left. Instead of the farmhouse looking out comfortably over the waters of the canal, people in barges on the canal were able to look down over the bank into the windows of the farmhouse.
    The farmhouse not only lost its view; it was almost entirely excluded from the sight of the owner and, of course, the ground floor rooms became exceedingly damp and were almost useless for habitation. That is a case where no structural or physical damage whatsoever
    1778
    there is a case for compensating people who own houses which are affected by occurred, but where serious injury was done to the owner of the house. It was. I think, a house within the limits allowed by this Bill. If this Resolution operates to prevent us putting down Amendments designed to cover specifically that kind of case, then this Resolution is entirely wrong. It ought not to be passed. The Government should deplore it, and put down something in much simpler and more general terms.
    There is another type of damage which will be familiar 'to those who live in mining areas, where something that does not directly affect the house nevertheless causes serious damage to the house. A house may not even be standing on land under which the coal is being worked. There is, for example, the case of a large reservoir where an accident occurs, a dam is breached, a torrent of water comes down a water—course, and a whole row of houses is very seriously damaged by a sudden flood. I do not think that type of case is within the meaning of this Resolution. We put down certain Amendments designed to enlarge the Resolution so as to cover that type of case. I have to admit that our intention was to enlarge the Resolution because we believe that that type of case should at least be discussed. Therefore, I ask the Government to say whether this Resolution is capable of the sort of interpretation that we want to put upon it. If not, the Resolution ought to be withdrawn and a new and a better one substituted.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. John McKay: I am not a lawyer, and sometimes I have great difficulty in following the speeches of lawyers. I was rather confused by the attitude adopted by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas—Tooth). I believe he said that what we are now doing in the Bill is absolutely wrong. He suggested that it was entirely wrong for the Coal Board to have to bear any expense relating to subsidence.
    History often enables one to make a better judgment. Therefore, before we pass judgment on the situation, we must go back into history and see what happened when the coal industry was under private enterprise. We must follow it up logically, and ascertain what was the

    1779
    equitable thing to do when subsidence occurred. I think we must admit that subsidence. If we admit that that is a reasonable liability for which compensation ought to be paid and if we want to pass judgment on this Bill, we must begin at the beginning. The real facts of the situation are these. Equity did not exist for this problem of subsidence when the coal industry was under private enterprise. Had there been equity and justice in those days, the coal trade would have accepted the liability, and indeed should have done so.
    Sir H. Lucas—Tooth: Is the hon Gentleman suggesting that the coal trade should accept the liability now?
    Mr. McKay: No. I think that is rather i stupid question, because the coal trade does not now exist in the sense in which I was referring to it. There now arises a problem which should have been settled while the industry was in private hands. The responsibility should have been placed upon the coal trade. That was not done. We now have a situation in which the coal industry is taken over by the State and nationalised. The problem of subsidence still exists and we have a new difficulty. Having taken over the coal industry, we realise that the problem of the past still exists. How can we deal with it? The hon. Baronet said that it was ridiculous to suggest that the Coal Board should take any responsibility, but if the coal trade is to take no responsibility, who is to take it? The State must take full responsibility or justice cannot be done in any respect.
    In justice, this should have been dealt with and paid for under private enterprise. Had that been done, we could have said when we brought the Bill forward, " The coal trade was responsible in the past and, therefore, the Coal Board must be responsible in the future." The problem is that the trade was not responsible in the past, so that there is on that argument no liability on the Coal Board now. Arising out of that, we have a compromise which will give justice to the owners of small houses and which places liability partly on the State and partly on the Coal Board. I think that is a fair and reasonable solution.
    Miss Jennie Lee: The hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South
    1780
    (Sir H. Lucas—Tooth) addressed an argument to the Committee which, as he knows very well, had a certain seductive quality for many on this side of the Committee. We very properly do not want to see the Coal Board overburdened, especially in these early, difficult days. Certainly if we were to judge public opinion, at least in my constituency, we should find that it is not worrying very much about whether the charge for these measures falls on the Coal Board or whether it falls on the national exchequer, provided the charge is met. Their point of view is that they would like more money spent; that is where their interest, indeed enthusiasm, lies.
    I hope the same argument as that which he advanced tonight will he brought forward by the hon. Baronet, if he is still in the House, when we go forward to implement the whole of the Turner Report, because at that stage we shall have very seriously to consider whether the Coal Board, which ultimately means the price of coal, or the Exchequer should bear the additional cost. No one has claimed for this Bill that it is more than a small emergency instalment of long overdue justice. The Coal Board has been consulted and it fully realises that it has considerable interests in this matter, as well as have the general ratepayers. The Coal Board knows that if it can get the houses on the surface in a better condition, then that will ease its problem of recruitment.
    I do not want to repeat the speech I made on Second Reading, but I would bring to the minds of the Committee the fact that the Coal Board has an interest, that the Coal Board will get benefits in this matter. I think it is quite good business, when we, as a House, are asking the Coal Board to act as our agents, that the Coal Board should have a financial interest in seeing that the job is done well but not extravagantly. We are dealing with a sum which will not exceed a burden of £250,000 a year on the Coal Board and £250,000 a year on the Exchequer. It might be less. We are told that it is very unlikely that it would be more. In terms of the limited job which we set out to do, the Resolution, as it stands, is quite satisfactory.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I do not want to repeat the second half of the argument made by the hon. Baronet the Member

    1781
    for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas—Tooth), and, I thought, very convincingly made, but I hope I may be allowed to try to indicate the strength of it in slightly different terms and with slightly different illustrations, and to ask the Government whether this Resolution really ought not to be considered again. I have not worked up the learning which there is to be worked up about the history of this House's impatience with Financial Resolutions. I have done it only rather vaguely. Many of the older hon. Members probably remember better than I do the Debates and the Select Committee in 1936–37, and perhaps some of them will be able to remind the Committee of exactly what happened and what was said then. My recollection is that the Select Committee did recommend that such Resolutions should always be drawn with considerably greater width than the Bill, that there should be a gap, so to speak, between the Bill as drafted and the Money Resolution as drafted, in which the Committee might have its chance of moving Amendments.
    I think the Government at that time—because all Governments naturally sin in this respect, from the point of view of back benchers; and the Government was of the opposite complexion to the present Government—refused to accept the report of the Select Committee, but they promised that instructions should be issued to the draftsmen that in future these Resolutions should be so drawn as to give us some elbow room between the Resolution and the Committee stage. It seems to me that here there is very little room given to us, and I should be clearer on the point if I knew, Sir Charles, exactly what were your reasons for ruling the second Amendment out of order. I know that nobody may cross—examine you on your Ruling, and if anybody might do so, certainly I could not; but it would 'be a little easier to put the argument if one knew the reasons why that was out of Order.
    The Deputy—Chairman: It was out of Order because it was either meaningless or it increased the charges.
    Mr. Pickthom: That is what I thought, but the point is, which? If because it is meaningless then I think we can put down the Amendments on a later stage which we should wish to put down, and the Bill can, I think, be properly com
    1782
    mitted; that is to say, if the words were unnecessary but inserted from excess of caution and in order to make something dead plain which otherwise would not have been plain. On Second Reading the interpretation certainly was not plain and the two Ministers concerned—I know this is a rather small point and perhaps I am not putting it very plainly, but I should be grateful if the Ministers would listen to me, because this affects what ought to be done, if anything—took different views. On Second Reading the Minister of Fuel and Power was quite plain that the definition covered structural damage done by indirection, at least if the indirection were round only one corner. The question asked of him was:
    " Does the Bill cover the type of case in which no actual damage is done to the house. but where subsidence has made it liable to flooding …"
    The Minister replied:
    " Yes, Sir; it will certainly do that"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 802.]
    If that were so, my submission is that the second Amendment would certainly be in Order, although it might be held to be otiose. On the other hand, the Parliamentary Secretary, rather hesitantly, took the opposite view; in fact, he took both views, but he took the opposite view to his senior Minister in the more positive and plain parts of what he said. This is what he said:
    "The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the question of flooding. We can go into greater detail on that in Committee. …"
    The hon. Gentleman evidently thought it would be in Order to go into that in Committee, but he went on:
    " but it can be said right away that if the flooding were due to damage to drains within the curtilage of the house that would obviously come within the scope of the Bill.. If the flooding is occasioned from somewhere outside—".—[OFFicIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 899.]
    —and here he is going to say the opposite to his senior for he says that if the flooding is not inside the house and garden, but that the flood comes in, then if that is so, in the Parliamentary Secretary's judgment it is not within the realm of the Bill.
    I do not propose to advise you, Sir Charles, or the Committee which of those two views is right, but the mere fact that the senior of the Ministers in charge of

    1783
    the Bill can take the view which gives the Bill the wider scope, seems to me a very strong support for the argument that when we come to the Committee stage we ought to be allowed to move Amendments making it quite plain that subsidence damage means damage not only caused immediately and directly by the removal of coal but by, for instance, flooding arising out of the removal of coal.
    8.0 p.m.
    If I am fairly arguing that we ought to be allowed to discuss that, then I think there is very strong support indeed for the view that the Government—because, after all, they are under an obligation to the Committee: it was the Minister of Fuel and Power who took the wider view—ought to say, "Perhaps this thing is drawn a bit tight. We quite see it is a bit difficult to move Amendments, and we will withdraw this Financial Resolution and put it before the Committee with a certain amount of elbow room."
    I suggest to the Committee that there is nothing whatever in this from a party point of view. I hope that no one will think that I am trying to score off the Government—in so far as anyone could think that what I am doing could have any effect whatever. I hope that no one thinks I am trying to score off the Government on this occasion. There are proper occasions for that. This is a non—party point of view, and I am not trying in the least to score off the Government. But it seems to me that what matters here from a social point of view, is that the maximum number of houses should be kept from decay. That is what matters from the social point of view, and if people are going to be afraid—as they are going to be afraid—in places where there are flood prevention schemes and subsidence may occur—and there are parts of the country where it happens—and say, " Suppose my house is damaged because a flood prevention scheme is interfered with by subsidence, and water comes into my house, or my house sinks down," then, if people feel that, obviously they will not spend money on keeping up those houses as they ought.
    I suggest that, although to have moved the second Amendment, and to have moved consequent Amendments in Committee, would, perhaps, have been out of order, as putting a charge on the Ex
    1784
    chequer. yet, in fact, if we are not allowed to discuss Amendmentson this matter, the practical effect of that is to put a charge on society as a whole, because it is going to increase the number of houses of which the owners will not feel sufficiently confident to make great efforts to keep them up and to make minor repairs, and so on. That is the risk that I see, and if it happens, then it will happen, upon my hypothesis, in districts where there is great housing shortage,. where there are numbers of the mining population and other populations who cannot move out and who have not great amounts of spare income.
    I suggest that, unless the Government make it possible for us to discuss that, we are running the serious risk that in those parts of the country where there are mines and where there are rivers and where there are properties liable to flooding, and where there are housing shortages there will be gross injustices and inadequacies under the Bill, and there will be public feeling that these will have arisen out of want of proper discussion in this Chamber. From the point of view of the prestige and power of the House of Commons that is the most serious evil that can happen.
    Mr. Redmayne: I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) in drawing attention to the many points that were raised on the Second Reading that probably could not be discussed on this Resolution. There was indeed at that time some faint hope that the scope of the Resolution might be extended. That hope was, in fact, groundless, and now I, with other hon. Members on this side of the Committee, find myself,
    " cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd, bound in To saucy doubts and fears."
    —saucy doubts lest I may not remain in Order, and fears that the Resolution emasculates the great possibilities of this Bill.
    These fears, to my mind, are crystallised in the phrase in the Resolution " certain dwelling—houses "—a phrase that expresses a limited and, I think it is fair to say, politically limited scope; a phrase—and this is the strongest point I want to make—that fails to cover even that class of person for whose benefit the Resolution is moved. In an effort to exclude the rich man in

    1785
    his castle, the Government have failed to include completely the poor man at his gate, and, what is more, they have most certainly excluded many a poor man at his counter and at his workbench.
    We know what " certain dwelling—houses " are in the Bill. They are of the rateable value of £32, and they include the dismembered parts of other buildings partly used as dwelling places, and subject to the same limits. These, in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary in the Second Reading Debate, are the houses of the character that it is intended to cover. In my constituency they question whether these certain dwelling—houses of the character that we intend to cover are, in fact, the houses lived in by the people who are to benefit from the Bill, and they ask why the class of houses or buildings is limited. What is more they 'ask why the limit cuts across definite classes of houses.
    In that area it is estimated that 75 per cent. of all the houses that have been or may be subject to subsidence are covered, but a further 20 per cent., which, sadly enough, are houses of the character required, are not covered, and those houses are those that were built before the war for something like £800 or £1,000, mostly on mortgage—small, three bedroom or four bed—room houses owned, and in the main occupied, by people of precisely the same standard as the Government want to cover.
    Mr. Robens: Do I understand that the rateable value of those houses would be about £32?
    Mr. Redmayne: In point of fact their rateable value may be something in the neighbourhood of £35.
    Mr. Robens: With great respect, there is nothing to prevent us from discussing that matter when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
    Mr. Redmayne: I do appreciate that, but it is necessary for me to use this argument to support my case as to why the Resolution should at this stage be withdrawn.
    Mr. Robens: I was trying to make the point that there is no need to widen this Financial Resolution if the hon. Gentleman, in Committee on the Bill, wants to discuss houses of a higher rateable value
    1786
    than £32. The terms of the Financial Resolution, I submit, will enable him to do that.
    Mr. Redmayne: That may be so but, as I hope to prove to the Committee in the short space of, perhaps, two or three minutes, I consider that this Financial Resolution is wrongly drafted and should be withdrawn, and one of my reasons —and only one—for saying so is that the Bill is not even comprehensive within the terms of the Governments intentions. I will explain that right away. We are concerned here with a sum not exceeding £250,000 in every year, to enable the National Coal Board to find a like sum or more on the expenditure set up by the Bill. We are assured from many sources, including the Minister, that the National Coal Board already spends £1 million a year on subsidence damage, and of this sum £500,000 is spent on small dwelling—houses. That number of small dwelling—houses represents half the dwelling—houses in the mining areas. That is one half.
    Mr. Noel—Baker: That is an estimate.
    Mr. Redmayne: I appreciate that it is an estimate, but needless to say it is probably a close estimate. The other half, he says, will be covered; that also I do not doubt is an estimate; and that also, of course, will be shared by the Treasury and the Coal Board. Now, the Minister's facilities for estimating the size of the problem are naturally greater than mine, but I cannot imagine that the concrete example I have quoted, and quoted with reason, is an isolated case. Yet if the Minister's half—and—half is in any way the near estimate that we must suppose it should be, the Committee may well doubt whether the phrase " certain dwelling—houses " is necessary to this Financial Resolution or to the Bill. They may well ask whether half the dwelling—houses plus half the dwelling—houses estimated by the Minister, should not, in fact, be all the dwelling—houses, and have done with this rather invidious distinction that is laid down in the Bill.
    Now I come to the point which I shall make with the greatest difficulty, and that is that the Committee may well ask themselves whether the whole of this Financial Resolution cannot be abandoned. The total annual sum envisaged by the Turner Report was approximately £3 million,

    1787
    and that, on an output of coal of 200 million tons a year, was 31d. a ton. That was to put in train the complete compensation for subsidence envisaged by that Report. We are concerned only with dwelling—houses in the mining areas. Of these, half are already covered by the Coal Board at an annual cost of £500,000, for which presumably the cost of coal already bears a charge which amounts, by the same calculation, to id. a ton. The share of the Coal Board under this Bill of the additional payments amounts to d. a ton, and we are tonight engaged in arguing the other id. Because of the very narrow terms of this Resolution we are, in fact, deprived of the opportunity of producing a Bill that will be really worth while, even with its comparatively small limit. I do not doubt that any suggestion that tends to increase the price of coal—already too high in the nation's interest—will be regarded on all sides of the Committee with suspicion; and indeed, it is sadly at variance with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas—Tooth) has already said.
    I realise also that the Turner Committee recommend that a far larger proportion of any cost should be borne by the Treasury. As I see it, this argument is like a bargain sale, and one sale ticket says this: " For the limited benefits of this Bill as restricted by the Resolution, on the price of coal id. a ton in every year." The second sale ticket says: " For the chance to make this Bill worth while by abandoning the Financial Resolution, on the price of coal another Id. a ton: id. a ton in all, and that will achieve the result." The bargain I would choose, and which I believe this Committee should choose, is to abandon the Resolution, and later so to amend the Bill that it would include all dwelling—houses and certain other small properties in so far as they can now be included. Like all bargains—and I would address this especially to the Minister—it is offered subject to being unsold, and it cannot be repeated. I wonder whether the Minister has an eye for a bargain?
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: I shall be very brief, but I must say that I certainly do not like this Financial Resolution, because it is obvious that if carried in this form, with the restrictions that are
    1788
    embodied in it, it will certainly cramp the style of any hon. Member on the Committee stage of the Bill. I think the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are already expecting from this side of the Committee pressure to be placed upon them and the Government to improve the body of the Bill. As one who has lived in this world of subsidence all his life, I am of opinion that the financial provisions made will not foot the bill by a very long way. That is what worries me. Any Amendments which may be proposed to the Bill may be ruled out of order because those Amendments may imply the spending of more money than is provided for in the Financial Resolution. Frankly, I think that the Financial Resolution is, on the whole, mean and miserly. It will take far more money than is provided in this Financial Resolution to cope with the subsidence and the ruin that has been caused by subsidence in the coal field I know best.
    There has been a difference of opinion in the Debate about whether or not the Coal Board should bear some measure of financial responsibility. I am of opinion that it should bear some measure of financial responsibility for the effects of subsidence, because I am far from satisfied that mining is carried out in a way that should avoid much of the subsidence that we have seen. It is known that millions of tons of debris and rubbish have been brought out from the collieries and piled on the hillsides in my coalfield—millions of tons of debris that should have been left underground and should have been stowed or packed away scientifically. Much of the subsidence from which we are suffering today is due to the disgraceful forms of mining that we have seen in South Wales.
    I shall not elaborate on this. I know that we are circumscribed by the Financial Resolution, although this matter has been referred to earlier in the Debate. In addition to being a coal miner, for my sins I happen to be also a mining engineer, and I have inquired over and over again amongst those responsible for managing collieries in my coalfield " Why do you bring all this rubbish to the surface, desecrating our beautiful hillside? " Over and over again the answer has been: " Oh, because it is cheaper to bring it to the surface than to pay for its scientific stowing underground." The result in my

    1789
    lifetime there has been subsidence that would seem incredible to any hon. Member who has not lived in a coalfield.
    I am anxious—and I agree with this part of the Financial Resolution—that the Coal Board should be at least partly responsible for any subsidence that may take place as the result of coalmining. In addition to the desecration of our valleys, towns and villages by the appalling, almost mountain—high heaps of rubbish, there has been further desecration in many parts of the South Wales coalfield caused by subsidence on a large scale. I agree with that principle as embodied in the Financial Resolution, but I sincerely wish that the Government had been a little more generous and had widened the scope of the Resolution, both in terms of money and in content, so that we could look forward, at least in the South Wales coalfield, to something being done in the future to obviate, so far as humanly possible, all kinds of subsidence. Where that cannot be done, those responsible for the mining of the coal should bear at least some of the consequences of the mining which has so often been ill—advised, wanton and reckless in the years that have gone by.
    Lord Dunglass: I make no apology for raising this matter, because I think we should have a clear definition from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary as to the exact meaning of the words:
    " damage caused by the withdrawal of support from land."
    If the Minister goes to the Lanarkshire coalfields now, where a great many of the pits are in an advanced state of working, he will find that a good deal of the damage done to the houses comes from the diversion of the courses of rivers and streams some of which are three or four miles above the houses which have been damaged. Is that kind of case covered or not by the Financial Resolution? That is the case of the valleys, but there is also the case of the hills.
    As the Minister knows many of the mines in Lanarkshire are fairly high up on the hills, the soil of which consist of peat and sand. Subsidence does not take place directly where the coal is worked but under houses, one or 4 miles away where the sand and peat have shifted. Only a week ago there was the case of a farm, now unfit for human habitation
    1790
    because the peat and sand had moved away from under the farm owing to the working of coal in a pit some 11 miles away. Will that kind of case be covered by this Financial Resolution? If it is not, this Bill is going to miss a great deal of damage which should and can be put right. If we are to pass a $ill, we might as well pass a good Bill to cover those cases.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said, I think—I was, unfortunately, not present on the Second Reading of the Bill—that there were not many people on this side of the House who represented the miners. There are one or two of us. There is the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pick—thorn) and myself, and unless we widen the Financial Resolution, I can assure him that there may be some more after the next appeal to the country.
    Sir Jahn Mellor: I also have a considerable number of coal mines in my constituency, but I do not wish this evening to cover again or to extend the arguments which have been put forward from this side of the House for the Government withdrawing this Financial Resolution and introducing another in wider terms. I should like to emphasise one point that was made by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pick—thorn) and emphasised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O.Davies). This is not a party point at all. In aid of that, I quote what the present Prime Minister said when he was Leader of the Opposition in 1937:
    "I deemed it to be my duty, as Leader of the Opposition, to call attention to what I consider to be the danger of Members losing their privileges in this House. There is no party issue raised "—
    He proceeded:
    " Look at what is happening today. Members get indignant. It is found, when a Bill comes forward in which they are interested, that the whole matter is dealt with in the Financial Resolution. With great care they draft Amendments, but those Amendments are out of order. They find it is no good waiting for the Bill because the Bill is governed by the Financial Resolution, and the Financial Resolution having been passed they cannot get their Amendments called. That is not fair to this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March. 1937; Vol. 321, c. 815 and 819.]
    It was as a result of the Debate in which that speech was made that a Select Committee was appointed—the Select

    1791
    Committee mentioned by the hon. Member for Carlton. In the course of their recommendations, the Select Committee recommended that any detailed provisions which defined or limited the objects or conditions of expenditure contained in a Bill should, if and so far as they are set out in a Financial Resolution, be expressed in wider terms than in the Bill so as to permit Amendments to the Bill which had for their object the extension or relaxation of such provisions and which did not materially increase the charge. This is an important House of Commons matter, and we should insist tonight that the Government do what I thought they had promised to do in the Second Reading Debate—but apparently they are not prepared to implement that promise—withdraw this Money Resolution and introduce another in sufficiently wide terms to enable all reasonable Amendments to be debated.
    Mr. Bracken: I must congratulate the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) on his truly remarkable memory. I was surprised, too, that hon. Members opposite did not applaud the admirable remarks made by the Prime Minister on this question of special Resolutions narrowly drawn. There is a little disrespect shown for the Prime Minister, when there is not the slightest applause or enthusiasm for his words. I dare say that the Minister will throw over the words of the Prime Minister when he comes to reply.
    Mr. Manuel: He will throw over the right hon. Gentleman's words.
    Mr. Bracken: We had a strong protest also tonight from the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas—Tooth), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), supported by the noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass). There is no doubt that the mean and meagre terms of the Financial Resolution burk debate. This is a deliberate attempt to burk debate, and it is more worthy of Goering's Reichstag than the House of Commons. I was delighted by the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. 0. Davies).
    An Hon. Member: You would be.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Who would not?
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Bracken: The Whips jeer at the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, but he was serving the Labour Party when many of the young Cripps opposite were lackeys, if I may say so. The Parliamentary Secretary is too much of an optimist, because he said we ought to try to improve the body of the Bill. Improvement is impossible under this Resolution, and in my judgment what the hon. Member calls the body should be first hanged, drawn and quartered and then, to make certain, cremated.
    Who are the people affected by the narrowness of this Financial Resolution? I see that the Home Secretary is laughing. Of course, he thinks nothing of the local authorities; they mean nothing to him. The schools mean nothing, the churches mean nothing—is that what we are to understand? The risibility of the Members opposite is truly extraordinary. If farmers are affected and, indeed, every section of the community living near mining areas, I should not have thought it was a matter for laughter. There are many cases of genuine hardship which are not in any way touched upon or redressed by the Bill. That is why it seems to us that wisdom lies in withdrawing this Financial Resolution.
    As is well known to you, Sir Charles, this House has little business nowadays. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury sitting opposite. He knows perfectly well that he has to find some work for hon. Members behind him in the next few months. What is the hurry about this? There is enough time and certainly there are enough Government draftsmen nowadays to deal with this Bill. Government draftsmen were overworked in the last Parliament but they have nothing to do now. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that he should accept our suggestion that this Resolution be withdrawn.
    We can turn ourselves—to use a hallowed Parliamentary remark—into a Council of State if we do so. From both sides of the House there is a genuine desire to get the main recommendations of the Turner Report into legislative form. As we shall have a great deal of Parliamentary time on our hands in the future, surely the Minister—I am talking now to the senior Minister, not the junior one—should take notice of the feeling

    1793
    on both sides of the Committee it is also very strong behind him…and withdraw this Resolution. I made an appeal last week to the Minister to do this and he seemed to be most inclined to meet me. He nodded, and at one stage he beamed. I do not know whether the malign hand of the Parliamentary Secretary has touched him, or what influence has been brought to bear on him, but this being a non—party matter, we should set out to improve the Bill. I have already described it as a mean and meagre Bill, and I only used such moderate language because I am a person who looks upon restraint as one of the great virtues.
    I say to the Minister: Let this Financial Resolution be withdrawn. If the Minister will meet us on this point, I can give him the assurance that no Resolution will ever get such respectful attention from the Opposition as the one he would reintroduce if he rewrote this Financial Resolution. I can promise him the swiftest passage for the Bill. It will be the Whips' delight. It will go through in less than no time if the Financial Resolution is withdrawn, and the Bill is made more like what the Turner Report recommended, than the miserable thing which the Minister has so far brought before us.
    Mr. Robens: We have been entertained once again by the right hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) with his synthetic indignation on this matter, but he has not added very much to our discussions. Two things have emerged. One is that the Exchequer should bear the whole of the cost, and the other is the question of indirect damage, or rather of damage caused indirectly by subsidence from afar.
    The hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas—Tooth) who raised the first point, unfortunately had to leave us, and we are obliged to him for his note of apology; but he was a signatory of the Report which made it quite clear that the Turner Committee said that the whole of the cost should not be borne by the Exchequer, but that out of the £3 million which is to be paid £2 million should be paid by the Exchequer and £1 million by the Coal Board…that is, if we are to implement the Turner Report as a whole. The Turner Committee gave as their reason that the Coal Board should
    1794
    have an incentive to avoid subsidence damage as far as possible.
    When the Bill was presented by my right hon. Friend, I thought that he had made it perfectly clear that all that was being done in the Bill was the bringing in of only a part of the recommendations of the Turner Committee—that part which related to certain dwelling—houses. That is all that the Bill was designed to do and therefore, the Government having decided that that was the only thing in the Turner Report which they could implement, there would be no point in having a wide Financial Resolution which could bring in all other Turner recommendations when it was not the policy of the Government to do that. Therefore, the Financial Resolution is drawn in order to meet Government policy and, arising from Government policy, to meet the Bill, which has already received its Second Reading from the House.
    On the second point—that is, damage caused indirectly as well as damage caused directly by subsidence—I understand from what hon. Gentlemen have said that they feel that this would remove an anomaly and would clear up the situation. I am not so sure that it would. The Financial Resolution is perfectly clear. It says:
    " the expression ' subsidence damage' means damage caused by the withdrawal of support from land …"
    That can be directly caused, and it might in certain circumstances be indirectly caused.
    Lord Dunglass rose—
    Mr. Robens: May I finish this? It is impossible on hypothetical cases, many of which have been given tonight, to say whether or not they would be covered by the Bill. After all, there has been a good deal of litigation on the question of whether a specified cause is the direct or proximate cause, or an indirect or remote cause, of an accident or damage. The principle has been settled in insurance. For example, if a house is on fire and an insurance policy covers that damage by fire, it has also been taken to cover the damage caused by the water which is used by the firemen in putting out the fire. Therefore, that principle of indirect—
    Mr. Bracken: That is not indirect.
    Mr. Robens: Yes, it is. The water has been used to put out the fire. The policy covered damage by fire, but the decision has been made that there is an indirect cause of damage, and therefore that has been generally accepted. There have been other cases, and I hope that I shall not weary the Committee if I mention one, which failed in relation to the question of indirect cause, concerning a woman who was pregnant. She was standing in the street. A tramcar stopped suddenly, a motor—cyclist went into the tramcar and a motor car ran into the cyclist. There was a bloody mess on the road at which the woman collapsed and ultimately had a miscarriage. She brought an action, but failed and in that case, although indirectly her unfortunate circumstances were caused ' by the accident, she lost the case. There are two examples of damage caused indirectly, one of which failed and the other succeeded. It comes down to this, that the courts will have to decide an issue of that kind.
    Lord Dunglass: What concerns us is that the first Amendment was ruled out of Order when we tried to get " indirectly " put in. Does the Financial Resolution cover those cases? That is the point to which the hon. Gentleman must address himself.
    Mr. Robens: I hope I have been addressing myself to it. [HON. MEMBERS: " No."] Let me say in amplification that if we introduced the word " indirectly " here it would not be a question of the courts deciding on:
    " damage caused by the withdrawal of supports from land,"
    but by anything indirectly.
    Mr. Pickthorn: If we could introduce it here, we could introduce it in the other places.
    Mr. Robens: That is so, but if that were done, there would be settlements made which would cost an enormous amount of money and which are not intended to be covered in this way. The Resolution is perfectly clear:
    " damage caused by the withdrawal of support from land …"
    In those cases which have been raised it may be a matter for the courts to decide whether the damage was caused by subsidence, or not. Beyond that one cannot go.
    1796
    I hope hon. Members will recognise that in this matter the implementation of the Turner Committee Report is not possible. We have taken part of it and, in bringing forward this Financial Resolution, we have endeavoured to cover that part of the Turner Committee's recommendation which we decided as a Government we could accept. It does not prevent a number of things which hon. Members have suggested from being discussed. I believe it was suggested that we could not even talk about the size of dwellings, but we can. The Financial Resolution does not rule that out. A number of other things have been mentioned which, it was thought, we could not discuss, but we can discuss many of the matters raised, even within the terms of the Financial Resolution, and I hope the House will now accept the Resolution.
    Mr. P. Roberts: I wish to press one point on which the Parliamentary Secretary did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas—Tooth). I support what my hon. Friend said and I am glad to come back into the fold after my excursion as a " Roberts deviationist." I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer a very pertinent point which my hon. Friend put about why the Coal Board should be asked to pay the extra charge. I press him to alter this. If this had come up under private enterprise and I had been in the House, I would have objected to it strongly. I see no reason why I should not object to it because it is a nationalised industry. If the principle is wrong in one case, it is wrong in the other. Here the Coal Board have no contractual right to pay the extra money, but the Minister has asked them to pay it. The Minister said in the Second Reading Debate:
    " I should like to say that it has been very much easier to go to the Coal Board to get the Bill agreed than it would have been if we had had to go to the Mining Association." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 903–4.]
    It was generally agreed to be wrong for the mining industry to accept this charge and it must still be wrong for the Coal Board to accept this charge, yet it has agreed to pay this extra which will be passed on in higher costs and higher prices for coal. I suggest that this is one example under nationalisation where

    1797
    political pressure can be brought to bear on the industry.
    Mr. Robens: I do not know whether the hon. Member was in his place when I began my speech, but I dealt precisely with that point and referred particularly to the Turner Committee's Report, of which the hon. Baronet was a signatory. They said that the Coal Board should bear a part of the cost. Had we brought in a Bill to implement the whole of the Turner recommendations, it would have covered some £3 million per annum, £2 million from the Exchequer and £1 million from the Coal Board. Iread that part of the recommendations. It is stated on page 29, in paragraph 14:
    " It is desirable that the National Coal Board should give a direct financial incentive to avoid subsidence damage so far as possible."
    We decided that on this matter of the dwelling—house the amount should be apportioned as to 50 per cent., with a maximum cost to the Exchequer of £250,000. So we have carried out the principle of the recommendation of the Turner Committee. That was the point that I made in reply to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas—Tooth).
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. P. Roberts: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I still press him on the point that there no right exists for the Coal Board to pay this charge under their present contractual relations. They can let these houses down now for nothing. They will continue to work in exactly the same way. I do not suppose that this charge mill make any difference to the workings which have been laid out and planned for years ahead by the Coal Board, except that they will have to pay a charge which they have not had to pay previously. That will be passed on to the consumer or taken from the wages paid in the mining industry, and in so far as it was a wrong principle before, it is wrong now. The Government would be well advised to take the advice of my right hon. Friend and ask for leave to withdraw this Resolution.
    Mr. Pickthorn: We have had an unusually " good house," I think, in the theatrical sense in that a good number of Members have been here, especially in the dinner hour, for a Financial
    1798
    Resolution, and one of a rather specially tight and technical kind. I think the Ministers in charge must, in candour, admit that the reason is that there is genuine disquiet on both sides of the Committee. I ask the Committee to agree with me that the last speech of the Parliamentary Secretary really did make things worse. I thought that his legal learning did more harm than good. We do not now want to be told that it is a very difficult legal question indeed, that there will be all sorts of litigation about it.
    The Parliamentary Secretary seems to forget that the process of legislation is to provide in advance as far as possible against litigation. The very fact that he can now see analogies between pregnant women and farm houses and floods in the cellar and the difficult questions which those analogies open up, and can say that it will be for the courts to decide, makes our point for us, the point that there ought to be ample opportunity for the whole House, in Committee, to consider all possible Amendments to this Bill.
    I apologise for my voice. I have been sitting here since three o'clock and have had nothing to eat or drink, which does not help. [HoN. MEMBERS: " Go and have some] I assure hon. Members. that no amount of physical distress or pain will deflect me from my duty, however long the process and however disagreeable my voice becomes.
    When the Parliamentary Secretary told us that the Government policy is to deal with a particular sort of small house and that there would therefore be no point in drawing the Financial Resolution so as not to exclude everything else, he gave us the whole case which the Select Committee made in 1936–37 against excessively tightly drawn Financial Resolutions.
    It was precisely that charge which the then Prime Minister promised instructions to Parliamentary counsel should obviate for the future, and the present Prime Minister then said that even that was not enough to ensure the liberty of this House. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen who were here at that time and who remember that that is the fact. What was then debated by the Select Committee, and more than condemned by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister,

    1799
    is now assumed by the hon. Gentleman opposite as a principle which ought to foreclose Debates in this House.
    I do appeal to hon. Members of the Committee, to whatever party they belong, to consider whether that ought to be so. But even though I think that is a false assumption of his and even if no Resolution were going to be passed which would cause an extra penny to be spent, I say we have a strong case, which comes to this; that where a house under a rateable value of £32 is damaged by flood immediately attributable to subsidence, the occupiers should have the same rights as those in a house damaged by subsidence.
    That may be right or wrong, but that is the case we say we ought to be allowed to put on the Committee stage, and we say that in this Bill as drafted it is more than doubtful whether that case can be put. The question whether or not more money ought to be spent, and whose money—the State's or the National Coal Board's—is really not relevant to that question. I see some hon. Gentleman opposite whom I know to be capable of thinking fairly about these things. I do appeal to them whether they think that the interest that really matters here is not the amount of money which is to be spent, but the number of houses which are going to be damaged or threatened with damage and not repaired. If houses are damaged and not repaired, then there are obvious disadvantages. There is a disadvantage equally great, if not quite so obvious, if small owners or occupiers—people with a row of four cottages—now say to themselves, " It is no use our sweating blood and going without food to keep the place mended, because, as like as not, it will be damaged by flood as a result of the new pits that are being sunk." That is another way in which the house will cease to be usable. What matters from the point of view of the national resources is that we should amend this Bill so that there will be the minimum of houses going out of use as a result of mining operations. That is the absolutely necessary thing to do. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell their own leaders and Ministers that that matters more than any point of honour and any unwillingness to give way.
    Secondly, I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite who are capable of thinking of
    1800
    the rights of this House to consider that the tight drawing of money Resolutions has been for generations an attempt to put one of the greatest limitations upon one freedom of this House, which is most obviously the freedom of the public—the freedom to discuss anything we choose to discuss. That has been admitted for generations. In the years before the war, we were promised, as a result of a report from a Select Committee, that in future Parliamentary counsel would be instructed so to draft Bills that we should not be in the difficulty in which we find ourselves this evening. Those pledges were given by the then Prime Minister. The present Prime Minister thinks that even those pledges are not good enough. and I ask his followers who are capable of rising above a momentary party consideration, whether that does not more than double the strength of our argument that this Resolution is bad, that it is a threat to the freedom of the House and, for reason of principle, ought to be withdrawn.
    Lord Dunglass: I should like to make one more appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] I make no apology whatever. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman practically forecast that, as a result of the way in which this Resolution is drawn, many hundreds of cases will have to go before the courts for decision, with the waste of time and money which that involves. It would be the simplest matter in the world for the Government to withdraw this Resolution and to redraft it. That would give them a chance to think again.
    The condition of the Lanarkshire coalfields is such that unless these two questions of flooding and of subsidence at a distance from the pit are covered by the Resolution, the Bill will lose half its value to that area. Once more, I appeal to the Minister to withdraw the Resolution and to let the Government think again. I underline what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken). We want to make this into a good Bill and, if the Resolution could be withdrawn, we would give it the quickest possible passage afterwards.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd(Birmingham, King's Norton): The Committee have heard the anxieties felt by several hon.

    1801
    Members, not all on one side of the Committee, about this Financial Resolution. We have had from the Parliamentary Secretary a rather self—confident justification of the position of the Government. That explanation, far from satisfying hon. Members on this side of the Committee, has considerably increased our disquiet. It is in those circumstances that I ask the Minister whether he will not reconsider this matter.
    I put it to him in this light. This is the first Bill of which he has been in charge since he took over his present office. Shortly we shall consider in Committee a Bill which we all agree, if it could be sufficiently improved, would be a real benefit to the mining districts. We want to have a spirit of co—operation during the later stages of this Bill, and I would say that that spirit of co—operation would be given from this side of the Committee in much fuller measure and with greater confidence that we really could make a really good Bill, if he would accede to our representations.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel—Baker): I am afraid that I cannot withdraw the Money Resolution. I think that, when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite read my hon. Friend's speech tomorrow, they will see that he has made a conclusive case. I wish to add only a few words to what he said. I want particularly to address a few sentences to the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), the spirit of whose speeches and whose fortitude this evening we greatly appreciate. He has spoken for a second time about flooding. I thought that my hon. Friend had made the matter quite clear. I will try to make even more clear what I think is clarity itself.
    The hon. Gentleman quoted my remarks in the Second Reading Debate. I was speaking in answer to a question and perhaps I did no make this point then as clear as my hon. Friend made it just now. The answer about flooding is that if subsidence causes flooding and, in consequence, a house is surrounded by water once or twice a year, without any physical damage to the house, then there is no claim for compensation. In effect, the house would be in the same position as many houses in the Thames Valley, where
    1802
    flooding is a natural phenomenon which occurs from time to time.
    Mr. PickthornIt is not caused by 'subsidence.
    Mr. Noel—Baker: But if there is flooding which causes physical damage to the house—the floors rot, the foundations do not perform their functions and so on—then, if subsidence is the cause of that. there is a claim for compensation. But, of course, whether or not subsidence is the cause is a very difficult and it may be a disputed matter. The noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) quoted the case of a farm in Lanarkshire which was built on sand and peat. I think he said that there were coal mines one and a half miles away. The sand and peat shifted and the house subsided. If, as seems clear in his case, it was subsidence that caused the damage to the house, then certainly his claim is covered, but, if there was doubt about it, it would have to go to the courts and no legislation can dispose of such a matter. I hope that makes it clear and that the Committee will think it is right.
    On the broad general point, the purposes of the Bill are set out in the Long Title. They are limited purposes; they were accepted by the House on Second Reading; the Money Resolution is in full accord with those purposes as set out in the Long Title; and I therefore hope that the Committee will accept them
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Bracken: Such a vain hope is the Minister's. The right hon. Gentleman now gives us another definition of subsidence—" if the foundations do not perform their functions." What a statement from a Minister of the Crown. I must say that the Minister has treated the Committee almost with contempt. I am glad that the Prime Minister is sitting beside him because, in his better days, the Prime Minister made a tremendous speech in the House—and I heard it—against drawing Financial Resolutions in a very narrow way. It was a splendid speech, but let the Committee look at the purpose before us today. The Prime Minister has already moved the Minister once, and I think that he should move him once again.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported Tomorrow

    NATIONAL ASSISTANCE SCALES (INCREASE)
    9.3 p.m.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I beg to move,
    " That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th April, be approved."
    It affords me considerable satisfaction to ask the House to approve the Draft Regulations now before it. As I recognise, and as I am quite sure hon. Members on both sides will recognise, the increase in purchasing power represented in these Regulations will go into the pockets of the least fortunate of the community. I am very glad to see here certain hon. Members who, I know, have devoted a considerable portion of their lives in campaigning persistently and consistently on behalf of those people who will be benefited if the House approves these Regulations tonight.
    The House will recall that nearly two years ago, in 1948, the Assistance Board took over from the local authorities responsibility for paying assistance. One purpose of that change, of course, was to remove finally the traces of the old Poor Law which attached to the administration of public assistance by local authorities. Another purpose was to remove the objectionable means test, objectionable on two accounts. It not only made those subject to it discontented, but it was a perennial source of uneasiness to those called upon to administer it. Another very important purpose was to introduce a uniform scale instead of the wide variety of scales which existed throughout the country. Although I have been in my present Department for only a few weeks, judging by what I hear, and perhaps by the fact that I do not hear many complaints, I think I can assure the House that this new system is working very smoothly, and that the National Assistance Board is giving a splendid service, which is being appreciated by those unfortunate people who come within its province.
    The new scales which operated from 5th July, 1948, were welcomed by both sides of the House. My predecessor submitted them. It was said then—and I think events have proved my predecessor was correct—that the great majority of those who would be transferred from the
    1804
    local authorities to the Board would benefit. Broadly speaking, they have benefited to something like 5s. a week for married couples and 4s. a week for single people. But, of course, it must be realised that when one replaces a series of scales by one uniform scale for the country as a whole, there are bound to be some in the country who, under the local authorities, were receiving a scale of allowances higher than that laid down in July, 1948; but I am glad to say that no one's allowance has been decreased on that account. I want to remind the House that if they approve these draft Regulations tonight, and these new scales are introduced, there will still be some people who remain in that category—probably only a few—who may be receiving a scale of allowances slightly higher than the ones we are introducing tonight. If I may use the expression, it is a " hangover " from the old local authority days.
    Before I come to the Regulations themselves, there are two classes which I want specially to mention. The House will recall that the National Asssistance Act placed a duty on the Board regarding blind persons and people suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. The 1948 Regulation accordingly included a special scale of allowances for those people. Broadly, that special scale provided an additional 25s. for a husband and wife, both of whom were blind or undergoing treatment, and 15s. if one of them was affected. Under these special scales, the Board is now paying at these rates to about 45,000 blind persons and 25,000 tuberculosis cases. I regard the tuberculosis allowances as a national investment which, I believe, returns dividends of incalculable value. Not only, of course, is the worker enabled to leave his work and obtain treatment as soon as possible, but it must be remembered, too, that a source of infection is removed from the family. I am very glad to be able to say tonight that the new Regulations will maintain the existing difference between the new scale and the old.
    The older Members of the House are, of course, very familiar with the procedure regarding National Assistance Regulations, but for the benefit of new Members I might, perhaps, just summarise it. The National Assistance Board is responsible for keeping an eye

    1805
    on the adequacy of the scales. It is for the Board from time to time to submit Draft Regulations. The Draft Regulations are submitted to me, and I, in turn, submit Draft Regulations to both Houses of Parliament. But, if the proposals which I put forward differ from those submitted to me by the Board, then it is necessary for me to submit a report to this House explaining why the two vary. I am pleased to say tonight that the Draft Regulations now before the House are in the same form as those submitted to me by the Board.
    I think hon. Members will agree that this is a very simple document—a ()pod deal simpler than some of the Draft Regu— lations submitted to this House earlier on. It does not mean that there is any change in form; there is simply an increase in the scale rates. The scale rate for a single adult—and I am sure the House will be pleased to see that there is no sex differentiation—is increased by 2s., and for a married couple by 3s. 6d. With the increase now proposed, it will range from 8s. for a child up to the age of five to 12s. for a child over 11. I think it will be agreed that this is a substantial improvement on what some of us remember many years ago.
    One of the main problems in the way of framing scales is how to deal with the wide variations in rent. The Board can never produce a single figure which would be fair, say, to a woman in a London suburb paying £1 a week rent and to a woman in a remote part of the country who may be paying 5s. for a cottage. As far as the assistance allowance is concerned, the practice, therefore, is to treat rent separately and to give a separate allowance to cover it. Normally the Board will pay the rent the applicant is paying, so long as it is reasonable in relation to the locality in which the applicant is living. We made an inquiry in 1948 which revealed that the average rent paid by the Board over the whole of the country was 10s. a week. I am pleased to tell the House that on inquiry I found comparatively few applicants are refused a full allowance for their rent.
    I have been asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House to define the discretionary powers exercised by the Board. I have had to tell hon. Members often that these discretionary powers are very wide. They will be exercised under the
    1806
    Regulations. Discretionary power covers power to give assistance with extra food for sick people and even the cost of domestic help. I have sometimes felt that in this respect hon. Members have thought the Board may have been a little niggardly. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear."] My hon. Friends are not quite right in saying, " Hear, hear." One—quarter of the applicants for National Assistance received this extra grant and last year, in the aggregate, it cost the country £3 million. I hope my hon. Friends will recognise that the National Assistance Board appreciate that these discretionary powers can be exercised very widely.
    I want to remind the House of the general basis on which these proposals are put forward. The duty of the Board is to put forward proposals and submit draft amendments as they think fit. Besides taking into account the movement of the index of retail prices, they must take into account wider considerations. They must, for instance, consider the importance of maintaining administrative stability.
    Let me remind hon. Members of the volume of work this change will entail. There are something like one million order books outstanding which will have to be dealt with if these Regulations are approved. Therefore, it is of vital importance that when the Board submits Draft Regulations to us they should be able to do so on a footing that if these proposals are accepted they will be regarded as settling the whole question of assistance for some time to come.
    The House will realise the administrative difficulty in adjusting the payments on a million hooks month after month or quarter after quarter. That is why hon. Members will realise that these scales are not mathematically related to the movements of the index of retail prices. In fact, the increase in those prices is something like 4 per cent., whereas the increase in these scales is much higher.
    I think the House would like me to put on record something about the number and types of case on the Board's books. In March of this year there were rather less than 1,200,000 cases. Of these, over 700,000 were pensioners out of a total of 4½ million pensioners. I should like the House to remember that figure. Although there are over 4½— million pensioners in this

    1807
    country, only 700,000 have applied for assistance. The blind and tuberculous, as I have mentioned, account for about 70,000. About 75,000 out of a total of about one million recipients of sickness benefit were getting it supplemented. Supplementation was also being paid in 34,000 out of some 260.000 on unemployment benefit. The House will agree that that figure is a little different from the figure that we used to know some years ago. Then there were about 220,000 in a miscellaneous group consisting mainly of old people, sick people and widows not qualifying for insurance benefit. Lastly there are about 30,000 in local authority homes and in hospitals.
    I want to say a word—because I feel that hon. Members will be asked this question by their constituents—about the date of operation and the procedure which will be followed in reviewing existing cases. All except 65,000 able—bodied men and women who are being paid at the exchanges draw their assistance by means of order books, and there are something like one million books to be dealt with. This is a considerable operation and will require the most careful preparation. It was quite impossible until I made the announcement in the House for these preparations to go forward, but now they are well in hand.
    I want to make it quite clear that nobody who receives assistance by means of a book need do anything to claim any increase which in time may be paid to them. Everyone now paid by a book will receive a new book from the Board, and we hope that they will receive their books so that they will be paid very soon after 12th June. If, however, they do not receive their books they need not bother their Members of Parliament, because the books will come along; they will be paid, if not immediately after 12th June, then later on, but any arrears, of course, will be made up.
    I now come to the cost to the Exchequer. These increases are expected to cost about £8,500,000 in a full year for the 1,200,000 existing cases alone. But I would remind hon. Members that when the basic pension went up in 1946 there were a number of pensioners who found themselves not eligible for supplementary assistance. As a result, with the increase in these rates these pensioners
    1808
    may now come forward again and apply for the increased rates. Besides those pensioners there will be others, too, because we always find that when rates are increased new applicants are attracted. For these reasons it is likely that the ultimate cost of the proposals which I am submitting to the House for approval will cost the Exchequer something of the order of £10 million.
    My last word is this. I have always felt that whatever the scales of assistance may be, it is necessary to ensure that they are administered in a humane and kindly fashion. From my observations I believe that the National Assistance Board, serviced as it is by very fine men and women, is observing its duties very closely, and is being courteous, understanding and kindly to the applicants. I commend to them and to all hon. Members of this House, when we think of these people who are applying for assistance, to repeat to themselves and to ourselves, " There, but for the grace of God, go I."
    9.20 p.m.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am sure the House would like me to thank the right hon. Lady for the clarity with which she has explained these Draft Regulations to us and to congratulate her on her promotion to be head of the Department which she now adorns. The only criticism which I myself would advance of the remarks she was good enough to make, is that they showed a quite pardonable reticence about the historical background of the edifice of national insurance and national assistance which we are now considering. Indeed, the National Assistance Board was set up by the Unemployment Act of 1934 and the labours of many Parliaments and many Ministers, of many different parties, have all gone to the gradual creation of this structure. In fact, the present system, which imposes upon us the necessity of considering again these scales of assistance, was enshrined in the Command Paper issued by the Coalition Government in September, 1944, when the principle was laid down that the scope of national assistance should be extended to all on proof of need.
    That, I take it, is common ground on both sides of the House, and I do not think there is any right of one party more

    1809
    than another to pride itself upon achievements in this great social field. I recollect that when this matter was being discussed in another place, the present Lord Chancellor, who was, in fact, the first Minister of National Insurance—he was appointed during the Coalition Government, when the Ministry was set up —was good enough to give historical perspective of this matter. He mentioned the work done in building up this great system by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Neville Chamberlain and the two then existing chairmen of the Assistance Board, Lord Rushcliffe and Lord Soulbury.
    I am sure that a word of that sort, without straying too far afield, is necessary to give the historical perspective, but I am sure the House will agree with me that in our present straitened circumstances it must be very pleasant for the right hon. Lady to come before us with these proposals. It is not given to many Ministers nowadays to play a convincing role in the part of Santa Claus, and even if I cannot with propriety say that the right hon. Lady appears before us as Father Christmas, yet she has borne a very tolerable resemblance tonight to Lady Bountiful.
    However, the hard fact needs to be faced by the House that these new Regulations are but a symptom of the increasing cost of living, of the fall in the power of our currency to command goods and services, of the decline in the purchasing power of the f; and this, of course, is an evil which afflicts many more people than those who are touched by these amended Regulations before us tonight. The regulations which we now propose to amend came into force on 5th July, 1948, and they remained stable at those rates until the present proposals. I remember that in answer to a Parliamentary Question the predecessor of the right hon. Lady stated, as recently as 13th December last:
    " The Board do not think that the change in prices since the present rates of assistance were approved by Parliament last year is sufficient to justify them at present in submitting fresh draft regulations to me. The Board are, however, continuing to watch the position closely."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1949; Vol. 470. c. 2486.]
    Four months after that was said the right hon. Lady announced in the House that these increases would in due course
    1810
    be made and that the proper Draft Regulations would be laid before Parliament. It is evident that in the four months since the Minister said the change in prices—as he called it—did not justify an increase the Board have now come to the conclusion that they ought to ask the House to approve these increases. The words " the change in prices " are rather an anaesthetic or anodyne way of expressing what has occurred. It is, of course, quite clear that the only justification for these amended Regulations is the fact that there has been a rise in the cost of living, which is likely to continue, and that, in consequence, we must make provision for it.
    We on this side of the House do not oppose these Regulations, but I feel bound to say that the evil of which they are the symptom is one which afflicts many more people than those who will receive some benefit from the amended Regulations. Indeed, all who depend in this country on fixed money payments of any sort are suffering from the rise in the cost of living—and in the cost of living increase the present high taxation plays a very great part. Service pensioners and other pensioners, people who are not on National Assistance but who are living on annuities and superannuation allowances very little above these scales, and, indeed, the lowest paid workers—are all feeling the effects of the rise in the cost of living, and are afflicted by the evil which these Regulations propose to mitigate in the case of those only who are receiving National Assistance.
    It is quite clear—it must be—to the House that if we had a steady currency instead of a declining currency, the Assistance Board would not have found it necessary to bring these Draft Regulations before us, any more than they found it necessary in December last. A million people, roughly, who are drawing National Assistance would not have been, as they are now, worse off, and all the 'many other millions of people in the country in the categories to which I have already referred would not be feeling the pinch so sorely as they are at the moment.
    The only other thing I should like to say is that we must give careful consideration to the consequences of the step we are taking unitedly tonight. There is a risk, always present in circumstances like

    1811
    these, of creating a disparity, an unbalance, between the various rates of monetary payments which go out in social services of one sort or another. Pensions and insurances, and so on, sick benefits—all these things should somehow be brought into line with the other social benefits of the State—insurance benefits, in particular. They are linked to contributions, and we cannot increase the benefits without increasing the contributions.
    I think there is a large measure of agreement on all sides of the House that any further increase in contributions would bear very hardly both upon the employers and upon the workers. But the great thing about insurance benefits is that they are received as of right, whereas, however generous the scales we may have for National Assistance, they cannot be paid without determination of needs, and determination of needs involves a means test. There is also to be considered in these matters the effect of these scales and increases upon the lowest category of wages. Connected with all that group of problems are the problems of an inflationary situation, and until the central weakness is cured we shall never be free from the recurrence of those problems.
    The real problem, the real difficulty, is the falling purchasing power of the currency. These Regulations will, for the time at least, mitigate the situation for those who are receiving National Assistance, but they are no permanent cure even in that restricted sphere. The permanent cure can only lie in general Government policy, in regions outside the Departmental purview of the right hon. Lady. I fancy I should not be in order in expanding this Debate into a discussion of a general economic character, but it is very well for this House, while agreeing to the Motion before it, to have regard to the grave trouble which has caused this Motion to be proposed to us tonight.
    9.31 p.m.
    Mr. Carmichael: I am amazed at the approach of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) to this matter. When he got well under way in his speech, I had the feeling that he was anxious to make a speech on the Budget, and not to deal with National Assistance at all. The
    1812
    money has to be found, and at the outset I would point out that we have had a rather strange and unique background to this Debate today, because earlier in our proceedings we heard woeful tales from the Opposition about the miserable existence of High Court judges living on their present salaries. I hope the same attention will be paid to our deliberations in dealing with those who are, without question, the very poorest people in the land. I accept the increases, like the rest of my hon. Friends, but I do so with mixed feelings. I regret to say that there are one or two things in the Regulations which, in my view, create anomalies which might be wiped out.
    I wish to raise three issues. First, the scaling down could have been attended to with greater accuracy and with some benefit to the recipients; second, there is a differentiation between certain categories of people under 21 years of age; third, I shall deal with people living in local authority homes. The right hon. Lady will remember that when she made a statement in the House I asked whether the Regulations would be so framed as to give the benefits all round. I consider, first the scales, and I discover that, apart from people of 21 and over getting 2s., there are variations. Why is it that those between 18 and 21 years of age are permitted an increase of 1s. 6d., those between 12 and 16 an increase of ls. 6d., and those between 16 and 18 an increase of only ls.? The only explanation I can find on examination is that it makes the arithmetic in the Department a bit easier by giving an increase of ls. instead of ls. 6d. It cannot be an increased cost of living basis which permits the giving of Is. 6d. to certain categories while excluding those between 16 and 18. How is that arrived at? Unfortunately, we are not permitted to amend the Regulations; we have to accept them; but I think that is an anomaly which might well have been avoided.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: Has my hon. Friend considered that between the ages of 11 and 16 adolescence is the main factor, and that at such ages children of both sexes require more food than they do between the ages of 16 and 18?
    Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend may be speaking as a medical man, but I know a lad between 16 and 18, and so far

    1813
    as eating is concerned I will put him against anyone the hon. Member likes to present. The point I am trying to make is that the group 18 to 21 get ls. 6d. and the group below—16 to 18—get Is. I want to know why the Department have subtracted one group and granted ls. as against the other group at Is. 6d.
    My second point relates to those who are at present getting 24s. and will be getting 26s. We are told in paragraph 2 (1, b) that that sum is granted
    " For a person who is living alone, or is a householder and, as such, is directly responsible for rent and household necessities."
    In the first place, can we be told quite clearly who is " a person living alone "? Will a person living in lodgings be regarded as living alone? Will a person living in a common lodging house, where there may be hundreds of people, be regarded as living alone? Will a person who is a relative, living in a house where he does not pay the rent but contributes towards the rent, be regarded as living with someone and, therefore, be denied the increased amount?
    From all my long experience of Public Assistance, I have never known a local authority to differentiate between a person over 21, saying that one person should get a higher scale because he is living with certain people and another person should be denied it because he is living with other people. I will give a concrete case. If I live with a complete stranger, I get 26s.—2s. above the 24s. formerly granted. If I live with a relative, no matter how remote, I shall be regarded as being a member of some household and, therefore, be denied 4s.—not 2s., but 4s. It need not be argued that it is in consequence of rent, because the rent is excluded from the calculation in scaling. The rent is added to the scaling, so that the amount of money paid to the person is an amount to sustain that person in the ordinary material things from week to week. I objected to this from the very beginning. A person over 21 years of age, living with someone who may be regarded as a relative, will get 22s., but if he lives with a complete stranger he will get 26s.
    I will put it another way. It is quite possible for a householder to apply and get 26s., although he may be living with a brother and sister earning quite good money. I want it to be clearly under
    1814
    stood that so long as he is a householder, no matter who else in the household is working, he will get the higher sum. I think that we are bound to admit that there is still a tendency for the Poor Law mind to operate in that particular scale. If it is not the Poor Law mind, what is it?
    Surely an unemployed person who is compelled to go to the Assistance Board is entitled to be treated as an adult and get a scale laid down for adults. I submit that as being the practice among advanced local authorities for many years. For instance, Glasgow gave the 20s.—odd to all over 21, and I want it to be noted that at that time the first 10s. 6d. of National Health Insurance was excluded from the calculation, so that a person was actually getting a scale well over 30s.
    I can find no justification for separating those over 21. It should be a flat scale for all of them, because rent is excluded entirely from the examination. In fact, if hon. Members examine the rent part, as I have done, they will find that those over 21, receiving the smaller sum, get a small fraction of rent because, again, it is thought of as being attached to the same family. I have calculated that throughout the country 62 per cent. of the people of that class only receive rent allowances of between 2s. and 5s. This makes it clear that not only are they not in the actual scaling, but, because they are living within the family and spread the total rent round every member of the family, they suffer also in consequence of that.
    My final point concerns the person living in a local authority home. Why is that person not included in the increase? The amount paid today is 26s. —21s. claimed by the local authority and 5s. pocket money for the person in the institution. Surely the cost of living has gone up both for the institution and the individual? I have been making inquiries and have discovered that the cost of maintaining a person in an institution works out at between £3 4s. and £3 10s. a week. When bringing in a Measure to improve the conditions of the unfortunate, we might have thought of those people. Would it have been a difficult task for the Department or the Board to have granted at least 2s.—ls. for the local authority which pays a heavy bill at the moment, and an extra Is. for the person who has to meet the same cost of living as those living in their own homes?

    1815
    I am pleased at the approach which Assistance Board officials are making to recipients of relief. I am aware of this because I have been in close touch with them in my own area. Apart altogether however, from the rights of the recipients to get the increase, it would make the task of the local officials much easier. What will happen is that we shall have more claims presented for extra allowances—for clothing and for a lot of other things. I hope that the next time we are considering the Regulations we shall remove some of those unfortunate anomalies, because they are unfair. I ask the right hon. Lady not to think in terms merely of increasing the scale in accordance with the increased cost of living. We have always held the view, which I think she has also held, that for too long the people at the bottom of the social scale have had too little. If conditions improve, apart altogether from whether the cost of living goes up, it is our job to see that those who, I repeat, are the most unfortunate members of the community get all the advantages we can give them, particularly old age pensioners who are in the evening of the days.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: I crave the indulgence of the House, as this is my maiden speech. In my view, there are two ways in which the regulations are not just as they should be. In one case they go too far, and in the other, they do not go far enough. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) has given me a lead because I wanted to speak about old age pensioners in receipt of supplementary allowances. I should like to echo the sentiments of the right hon. Lady the Minister when she spoke of the sympathy, the skill and the careful attention which are given by the officers of the Board to these old people. I am sure that both sides of the House will agree with me that these men carry out their work in a very fine and creditable manner. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear."]
    In interesting myself in this matter, I first of all wanted to find out the spending pattern of the old age pensioner, because unless one knows how the old age pensioner spends his or her money, it is difficult to make a case to the Minister and to suggest any improvement. I went to
    1816
    the Library of this House, but I could find nothing at all that told me how the old age pensioner spends his money, nor from any source could I get this information. With the assistance, therefore of my friends in Govan and elsewhere I have carried out a fairly scientific survey of exactly how old age pensioners spend their money, and I crave the indulgence of the House if I read out this pitiful little bill of 26s. worth of living:
    "Food … 14s. 6½d. per week, made up as follows:
    Bread, potatoes and flour—2s. 6d.
    Meat, including bones and offal—1s. 4d
    Milk, half a pint a day—ls. 1½d.
    Vegetables "—
    there is nothing here for fruit—
    " —1s. 6d.
    Tea, cocoa and similar drinks "—
    there is nothing at all for alcohol—
    " —1s. 2d.
    Jam—1s. 6d.
    Bacon and eggs"—
    sometimes the old folk take milk instead of bacon and eggs—
    " —Is. 4d.
    Butter, margarine and cooking fat—11d. Porridge or cereals—7+d.
    Sugar and cheese—41d.
    Fish—1s, 2d.
    Sundries "—
    that is, condiments arid other foods—
    " —1s. 0d."
    That is, 14s. 6½d. worth of food. The next heading is: " Fuel and light," which comes to 5s. 9d. made up, as far as I gather, by coal, 4s. 3d., and light and cooking, 1s. 6d. The next item is " Tobacco and/or sweets "—there is no room for both—which comes to 1s. 6d., and finally " Sundries," which amount to 4s. 2½d. and are made up as follow:
    " Soap, powders and disinfectants—11½d.
    Matches—2d.
    Bus and travel—6d.
    Admission to entertainment or a subscription to the Old Age Pensioners' Association—2d.
    Reading matter and newspapers "—
    which are vital to the old people—
    " —10d."
    This item must in some cases include 4d. for a wireless licence.
    "Boot and clothing repairs not met by the State—8d.
    Hairdressing, shaving, toilet, brushes, combs, etc. —5d."
    and for men over 67 and women over 62—
    "Funeral insurance—6d."

    1817
    I should like the House to note that this pitiful little bill of 26s. contains no item which can be supplied under the heading of supplementary allowances, as these items are normal needs which are intended to be covered by the scale rate and are not regarded as exceptional needs.
    Examine these figures for a moment. The conditions of old age remain for the full span of the declining years; one cannot expect any improvement; and these figures, although they may give life, cannot give enjoyment of life. I have made many surveys and have received figures from all sources. I have had to arrive at averages to give the House this information. Perhaps the publication of these figures will give rise to charges that they are incorrect. I hope that they do so, because only by the examination of this serious matter can we hope to arrive at a right conclusion. I ask the Minister also if, when she has examined these figures, she could provide a similar break—down, and explain to the House how the Ministry intend that the sum of 26s. a week should be spent.
    If my survey has done nothing else, it has achieved its object because it has shown where lies the greatest hardship. I am not referring to the fact that if the old gentleman wants to go to the pictures he has to give up one of these little items, or that if he wants another packet of cigarettes or another glass of beer, he must go without something else. I am talking about a much graver hardship, that is, in relation to fuel. Hon. Members will have noticed that of the 26s., 5s. 9d. is spent on fuel; that is, 22 per cent. I could not find any current statistics, but, in the Bulletin of the Oxford University Institute of Statistics, I found that in 1938 for the lower income group 8 per cent. was spent on fuel, as against 22 per cent. today.
    The result of my survey is that old people—far too many of them—are not spending 5s. 9d. a week on fuel, but 8s. 6d. to 8s. 9d., just to keep warm. Far too many old people today, in spite of supplementary allowances, are faced with going without desirable foods—and they usually go without butter, eggs or jam—or staying in bed, in a cold, dark room, because they cannot afford to maintain a fire. It is wrong that old people should be faced with this alternative of being able to keep warm, or
    1818
    getting correct food to eat, but they cannot do both. I am aware that there are powers to supplement fuel, but those powers of supplementation only refer to damp and dark premises, and they do not go far enough.
    In all sincerity I ask the Minister to consider the point, which I believe to be administratively practicable, of giving old people a bag of coal a week or, alternatively, a weekly fuel token to the value of 2s. 6d. or 3s. to be accepted by the fuel supplier in lieu of cash. I suggest that these tokens be held by the National Assistance Board officers and given out by the Board's officers, who would have discretionary powers to give them especially to old people who live alone, with no other means of support, or to old people who live in houses which are abnormally dark or damp. If the Minister did this, it would not be a too heavy drain on the Exchequer because it would only occur in winter and would be received by a small proportion of the 700,000 pensioners on receipt of supplementary allowances. I do not think it would cost more than £1 million a year.
    In these days one should not suggest spending money without suggesting some way in which it can be saved. I said that the Regulations did not go far enough in relation to old age pensioners. I want to make a counter suggestion. I believe the Regulations as at present drafted go too far in another direction. In my view it is wrong that while old people have to stay in bed to keep warm there is a class—admittedly a small class —of people in receipt of National Assistance which they do not deserve. I refer to those who habitually commit industrial misconduct, those who come under the category of " benefit suspended " or " benefit disallowed " and not under appeal. These are men who deliberately throw up their jobs, or refuse suitable employment in some cases, and who know quite well that the employment exchange will not keep them, but do not care because they know the Assistance Board will keep not only their wives and children but also themselves.
    These people are known personally to the officers of the Board. They come to the offices, usually on a Friday, and plead urgent need on a plea of destitution, and the officers of the Board are only able, as far as I can ascertain, to dock them

    1819
    two or three shillings under the present Regulations and they must, quite rightly and properly, provide for the wives and children. I have tried to find the extent to which this is going on. The only record I can get from the Ministry is in page 21 of the Report of the Assistance Board for the year ended 1947. It shows some 2,000 a week, but, as we have already been told, certain types of cases were at that time being passed on to the local authorities who in some cases gave relief on a much more meagre scale. It is surprising to me—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong —that since the new Act came into operation in 1948, no statistics appear to have been kept of " benefit suspended " or " disallowed cases." I have, therefore, to make my own estimate because of lack of other information.
    I believe that investigation would show that there are nearer 20,000 of these cases per week than the 2,000 per week in 1947. Even if my figure is an over—estimate, the figure will steadily increase as loopholes are found in the Regulations and as those loopholes are more widely known. If I am correct, the cost to the National Assistance Board and Exchequer grant funds is some £20,000 per week. That means that £20,000 more per week is being received by these men than they are entitled to expect from their fellow men. That is £1 million a year, which, diverted to fuel allowances, would bring warmth, light and happiness to some 250,000 old people who are not getting them now.
    Surely some action should be taken to stop this very undersirable leakage of National Assistance funds. I believe that the Board already have the powers in Clause 3 of the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations, 1948, which we are now discussing, to adjust the amount of benefit to the amount appropriate to the circumstances. We have heard of the benefit being increased. There may be appropriate circumstances in which the benefit can be reduced. I suggest that the Board have been over—generous and have been timid in the use of the powers which they already have. So far as I can ascertain, there have been only two or three instances of prosecution in this type of case. I do not think that in giving instructions to their officers the
    1820
    Board have made it sufficiently clear that they will support to the full the widest use of the discretionary powers of their officers very drastically to reduce or in some cases even completely to stop allowances made for the personal benefit of known habitual offenders.
    I ask the Minister to look into this matter and to take a firmer line with this sort of offender. If she does so she will find a desirable saving from every point of view and one which will go far to offset the essential additional relief to which, I feel, these old people are so justly entitled.
    9.58 p.m.
    Mr. Tom Brown: I am sure that the whole House will join with me in extending congratulations to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Browne) on his eloquent and informative maiden speech. If I may say so, I think that he is on the wrong side of the House. I recall that I made my maiden speech on the very same question of old age pensioners in February, 1943. The hon. Member happens to possess the same surname as myself, and he has certainly given the House evidence of his interest in old age pensioners. I hope that when at a subsequent date, the time comes, he will reveal the same enthusiasm in his plea for some assistance to those who are getting just the bare pension.
    It was on 4th November that I, with a number of other Members, raised the question of an amendment to the National Assistance Regulations, which we now have presented to the House. I recall that there was not the same enthusias m as is manifested tonight. There were only comparatively few in the House, certainly fewer on the Opposition 'benches, when we pleaded for some consideration of the Regulations. I made a suggestion which, I think, as the amended Regulations reveal, was accepted by the Government. I suggested that there were three Departments concerned with bringing forth amended Regulations to assist those people who were most in need. One Department was the Ministry of National Insurance and the others the National Assistance Board and the Treasury. I suggested that the high level officials in each Department together with the Minister should get together and, with a will and determination, amend the Regulations, which fell

    1821
    very far short of meeting the needs of the most needy.
    I am delighted to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance has done so exceedingly well since she took over the office. I would like to congratulate her on performing what I consider to be a miracle. The days of miracles are not over. She has performed a miracle, in these days of economic stress, by extracting from the Treasury 01 million. That is an accomplishment, and I heartily congratulate her and her Department on having done what has been done.
    Mr. James Hudson: Send for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Brown: I wish he was here. The acceptance of the amended Regulations now before the House can be acclaimed without fear of contradiction as another step forward in the field of social insurance. They aim at making a further provision against every one of the main attacks which economic ill—fortune can launch against individual well—being and peace of mind.
    The story of the growth and development of our Social Services is a great and a long story, and it is characteristically a British story. Like so many of the institutions of this country, it has been slow in its growth, unhurried in its develop— ment, but capable, as is manifested by the present Regulations, of quickening its tempo to meet the urgent demands of necessity. It has been characteristically British in its growth, its variety, its flexibility and its readiness to admit the necessity for improvements. Our social insurance schemes carry a policy, as no one can deny, of securing a balanced combination of humanity and freedom. They seek, and have always sought from the very early days, the abolition of want; but not at the expense of individual liberty.
    No one can deny that today we are living in a vastly changing world. The opinions and thoughts of responsible people have changed considerably, and within the last few months the opinions of hon. Members opposite have changed considerably on this particular aspect. The weight of public opinion has brought that great change about. It is interesting to compare some of the statements that were being made during the last 40 years.
    1822
    I shall not quote every one of them, but I will quote two. I recall, having read the history of this House, that on 9th July, 1908, a well known Member of the Opposition said that he was surprised that a Government pledged to economy should come to this House and wantonly break their pledges. That was said by a prominent Conservative in this House. I compare that statement, made in 1908—
    Mr. Speaker: I think that we had better get back to 1950. Nineteen hundred and eight is a long time ago.
    Mr. Brown: I should just like to repeat what was said in 1948 by the Bishop of Croydon. He is not a politician. He said:
    " We thank God that the Government is taking care of the aged as the Church never could do."
    The aged are getting a far better deal than ever before, and the growing interest of the Government in their case is a matter of vital concern. The Government are helping the most needy people in our land by the Regulations now before us. No longer do the old people appear in the dreary queue outside the Poor Law doctor's surgery. They choose their own home doctor now as a right, which they never had before the passing of the National Insurance Act.
    As I have said, these Regulations are another step forward in the field of social security. I thank the right hon. Lady for taking this courageous step at a time when this country is under economic stress. As one who has tried throughout his life to improve the lot of the most needy, I say, " Thank you " to those who have made these Amendments possible. I express the profound hope that, when the opportunity presents itself, my right hon. Friend will act with the same speed, the same courage and determination and the same human feeling, to increase the basic pension of our old people, remembering, as I said in my maiden speech in 1943, that a nation finds its soul only when it looks after its old people. I hope and trust that the right hon. Lady and her Department will bear that in mind. I welcome these Regulations, which will meet to some degree the most needy cases.
    10.8 p.m.
    Mr. Macdonald: I should like to present my congratulations to the hon. Member for

    1823
    Govan (Mr. Browne), who made a truly remarkable maiden speech which was full of most useful information and was a constructive speech in every sense. I should like also to congratulate the right hon. Lady the Minister of National Insurance on the much—needed Amendment Regulations which she has brought forward tonight and which, I hope, will have the full support of Members of all parties. I know that these Regulations will be welcomed by that very large section of the community, the old age pensioners and those in great need—people who are dependent upon Members of all parties in this House to give them a fair deal.
    I wish to ask two questions. These supplementary allowances have become necessary as a result of the increase in the cost of living. I have looked through these Regulations in an endeavour to find some provision that these supplementary allowances will be further increased should the cost of living rise still further. In her speech the right hon. Lady mentioned that amendments to Regulations of this kind meant a great deal of clerical work in the different offices of the Ministry of National Insurance, and I rather gathered from her statement that it was anticipated, or hoped, that there would be no need to do this work again for a very considerable time ahead; but we cannot be sure for one moment that the cost of living is likely to remain stable. In fact, it may go higher, and this section of the public certainly needs our protection so that, if the cost of living does go higher, it will not leave them in want.
    My second question also concerns supplementary allowances. I ask the Minister whether those who are not now drawing supplementary allowances, but who may need to do so in future, will have to wait very long before they can benefit. The right hon. Lady said that those now drawing them will get new books for their old books, but the new applicant may have to wait some considerable time. I should be glad to know what assurances can be given to them.
    10.11 p.m.
    Mr. Hubbard: It was with some satisfaction that I listened to my right hon. Friend tonight introduce these Regulations, having heard her on many occasions, before she reached the
    1824
    elevated rank which she now so graciously occupies, make earnest appeals on behalf of the old age pensioners who are greatly affected by these Regulations.
    I am fully aware that every consideration has been given to all aspects of this matter. Nevertheless, there are, in my opinion, one or two points which warrant further consideration. It is stated in the amended Regulations that householders would be entitled to the 26s. a week National Assistance scale but there is one class of people now drawing National Assistance who, while they may be scaled at 26s., will, in fact, after the date when these Regulations come into operation, receive considerably less. I refer to widows who are between the ages of 50 and 60, who receive 24s. at the moment and will receive 26s. under the new Regulations, but who will, in fact, have to pay 3s. 8d. every week for a stamp for National Insurance to enable them to qualify for a pension.
    While my right hon. Friend is anxious to do the right thing, so that everyone will be able to meet the present—day cost of living, these people will find themselves out in the wilderness, as one section of the community poorer than the old age pensioners. I had rather hoped, having drawn the attention of the Assistance Board to this anomaly on more than one occasion, that it might have been taken up this time, particularly when we remember my right hon. Friend's statement that it may be some considerable time before we can hope to amend the Regulations again.
    Then there is another section of the community which will be little better off. I refer to the old age pensioners or persons living on National Insurance rates who are not paying rent and rates. Those are the qualifying words in regard to the National Assistance scales. I have had experience of an old age pensioner living with his family, in which there was a rather large number of children, having a struggle at all times to keep up with the cost of living. Of necessity they brought the father into the home to live with them in order to give him a little more care and attention that little affection which means so much to old people. But what did they find? They found that the 26s. a week which their father was drawing by way of National Insurance

    1825
    benefit could not now be supplemented because he was living with relatives, even though their own income was very low. They might well have taken in a boarder who would have had to pay far more than 26s. a week. It was impossible for them to treat the old gentleman very generously; they could not buy him clothes. An application was made to the Assistance Board for clothes, but it was refused.
    I am sorry to relate that the economic circumstances of these people were so reduced through trying to assist the old man that, in the end, he had to go to what was formerly the Poor Law authority, which of course cost the country more than it would have done if he had been given a little supplementary benefit. A person living in a house for which he is paying rent and rates can enjoy supplementary benefit up to 24s. after rent and rates have been paid, but a person living with his own relatives is denied such supplementary benefit.
    Then there is the case of the man who, for some reason, has never paid National Health Insurance contributions and who receives only the ordinary National Assistance scale of 20s. Such a man may find himself in the same position. I should be very interested to know whether, in fact, those who receive no old age pension or any other payment from social insurance, and who are drawing 20s. a week from the National Assistance Board, are allowed to have their benefit made up to the 26s. or the 22s. as the case may be. There are one or two exceptions. No one would want to oppose the Regulations when they realise the difficult circumstances in which old people are living at the present moment. This applies not only to old people, but also to those who perhaps, have been unable to work through sickness
    It might also be said that a more generous scale might be given by way of a clothing allowance because the cost of clothes is based on what it used to cost local authorities to provide the clothing by bulk purchase. I have found that the sum allowed is absolutely inadequate for the purchase of individual items of clothing, although it was sufficient under the system of bulk purchase. I was very interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman
    1826
    opposite relate the need for these Regulations to the increased cost of living, but we must remember that the old people have been pursuing this point for many years, and that it is not something which has arisen only recently.
    It is very interesting to note that for some people, the cost of living increased only last night. I am sure old age pensioners will not be overjoyed to know that now the cost of a meal may be 30s., whereas all they receive is 26s. a week. I am glad to see a more humane and generous approach to this question by hon. Members opposite even at this late date. I remember, in 1947, the right hon. Gentleman who then represented the Scottish Universities in this House suggesting that the Government were premature when they increased the basic pension.
    In conclusion, I wish to say that while we welcome this change, I hope that the response which the right hon. Lady will get from the country as a consequence will spur her on to greater things, and that she will find some way of helping the widows who have to pay National Health contributions if they want a pension at the age of 60.
    10.20 p.m.
    Mr. Summers: Like those who have spoken before me, I greatly welcome the new Regulations the right hon. Lady has put before the House. At the same time, I deplore their necessity. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) to describe the advent of these Regulations as a great step forward. What he appears to overlook is that people are stepping forward on a moving staircase. He may have found, as I have found, that for some unaccountable reason it is far more tiring to walk upstairs on a moving staircase than it is on a stationary one.
    Mr. T. Brown: But we are moving forward.
    Mr. Summers: Unfortunately there appears to be no prospect of this moving staircase coming to an end. I am glad to welcome these Regulations, first because the most deserving in the community are to have consideration, since the right hon. Lady has found it possible to give them help, unlike the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget arrange

    1827
    ments for this year. Secondly, I welcome the Regulations because I think that, more and more, we shall have to discriminate in the expenditure of the taxpayers' money to make sure that those who really need help do in fact get it. The fact that within two years of the previous Regulations being brought forward it has been necessary to come to this House and admit that they are quite inadequate for the needs of the day is a shocking indictment of Socialism in practice.
    I was interested when the right hon. Lady told us that we ought not to compare, say, the addition of 3s. 6d. for a married couple under these Regulations with any figure arising from a strict interpretation of the cost of living index or the index of retail prices. I understood from her that she had intended to put rather more into these Regulations than an exact calculation of the past would have made possible if that had been done strictly. Since the Regulations have been brought out, there has been a rise of five points in the cost of living basis.
    Mr. Paton: Not quite four.
    Mr. Summers: If the hon. Gentleman will look up the figure, he will find it has gone up from 108 in April, May, July, August, September and October, 1948.
    I have taken the trouble to see how an increase in the cost of living is translated into terms of money in those wage regulations which are linked with the cost of living. It is interesting to see how those figures compare with the 3s. 6d. which, under these Regulations, it is suggested a married couple should have in addition to what they had before.
    Arrangements in different industries differ greatly. Some only make a change when there is a rise of three points. That is the position in the building industry. In the steel industry each point is reflected in a change in wages related to the cost of living. In the boot and shoe industry, it takes four points before a change is made. The upshot is that for a rise of five points, such as we have had since 1948, there would follow a rise of 2s. 10d. a week on wages in the building industry. In the iron and steel industry the rise would be 3s., and in the
    1828
    boot and shoe industry and hosiery manufacture 4s. for men and 3s. for women.
    If in the light of those figures we take the 3s. 6d. that is now suggested, there does not seem to be very much wrong with that comparison, but when we are told that it is expected to have in it some element to take care presumably of still further additions to the cost of living, then surely it must be regarded as inadequate. It is not many days since we were told that the increase in the cost of food would be something approaching one point. The increase in railway fares translated into coal and various other items may well result in the best part of an additional point being added. We have the effect of the increase in the price of petrol, and still further increases to come, in my judgment, from the ultimate effects of devalution.
    If, therefore, under these Regulations, at the very most 6d. is expected to take care of the further rises still to come, which on the basis of wage rates may be expressed in terms of 7d. a point in the cost of living, then I suggest the Regulations will not last long and it will not be long before the right hon. Lady has to come to this House again and tell us that all the planning from the Government benches has failed to do justice to the requirements of the people who are most in need.
    There will be two main indirect results from the very welcome changes which we are now considering. The first will be the effect on wage scales. When we find that a man paying a rent of the order of £1 a week, having three children, will have a claim to something like £5 a week, there will be many too close to that amount who will quite properly say " If for a regular week's work I can earn but a few shillings in addition to the basic needs as judged by these Regulations, then it is surely time that I had an increase in my wages." [HON. MEMBERS: " Why not? "] The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the person to whom that question should be addressed.
    We are now told that it is not expected that the additional assistance will be limited merely to those who are at present drawing benefits. Of course, as the rates go up so will be the attraction for fresh people to put forward claims in consequence. A man who is out of work or

    1829
    sick, with three children, will receive in the form of National Insurance benefit £3 a week in round figures. Under these minimum scales, in terms of need the basis is found to be £5 a week for such a man. There will therefore be the attraction of applying for an additional £2 under the Regulations. It suggests to me that the total increase which was mentioned by the right hon. Lady is a considerable under—estimate of what we may expect under these Regulations.
    This is not the time to expand on the economic situation. We are all familiar with the inflationary effect of wages chasing prices. Instead of that spiral between wages and prices with which we are familiar, it seems that we are getting into a spiral of one Government expenditure chasing another and making still further Government expenditure necessary to deal with the needs of the people. It seems to me, therefore, that these Regulations point both a warning and a moral. The warning I have already dealt with, and the moral, if the House will bear with me for a couple of minutes more, can best be expressed in a little conundrum which used to be set as an intelligence test and which I think is not entirely irrelevant to what we are discussing this evening.
    It is said that once two sheiks were crossing the desert on two camels. [An HON. MEMBER: " Do they come under the Regulations? "] They had gone a long way and were in sight of an oasis when they met, coming towards them, another traveller who reported to them that there was only enough water at the oasis for one camel. In that part of the world chivalry still prevails and the tradition is that the first arrival must on no account water his camel, but must give place to his neighbour, as a kind of hospitality. The riders were both very fond of their camels, one of which was noted for its endurance and the other for its loyalty, and realising the situation, they both rode slower and slower and slower, so that neither should arrive first and have to give way, until finally they reached a standstill—not unlike the situation we had in this House on Monday night. The traveller, looking over his shoulder, observed them standing still. Then suddenly he noticed that one spoke to the other, after which they galloped to the oasis. The conundrum which was put was, What
    1830
    were the two words, and two only, which resulted in that marked change in the situation?
    Mr. Messer: Got the hump !
    Mr. Summers: The hon. Gentleman does not think fast enough. I will not detain the House. The two words, which I commend to the British public at the present time, were " Change camels."
    10.33 p.m.
    Mr. Crossman: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) and to agree with him on two points. I also would like to raise the question whether the increase in these scales is large enough to meet the prospects of the next 18 months. I agree that if the increase in scales encourages an underpaid worker to achieve a decent wage, that will have an excellent subsidiary effect. I note with pleasure the contrast between the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the problem and that of his own Front Bench. We had the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) telling us of the menace of these increases because they would create a wages crisis, and we see the younger and more progressive Tories understanding to the full that if we produce a national minimum—for the scales of supplementary assistance are designed to provide the minimum on which a human being can live and retain his human dignity—it is a basis on which all wages should rest.
    Sir Herbert Williams: I understood from a recent article of the hon. Member that the wage freeze was the sole explanation of full employment.
    Mr. Crossman: I do not know to what the hon. Member refers. What I pointed out—and I will repeat verbatim what I said in my article—was that as a makeshift it had maintained full employment, but that in justice wage restraints had to be instituted which permitted increases in pay for lower—paid workers. If these new scales of assistance have the subsidiary effect of encouraging the lower—paid workers to demand what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already repeatedly told them they should demand, these Regulations certainly should not be criticised for that reason.

    1831
    I should like to make some reference to the character of this Debate. I think it is very satisfactory that so many hon. Members have decided to attend it. I remember vividly the first time I sat on a public assistance committee: it was in a very reactionary borough, the borough of Oxford, and at that time it had very few Labour members. I remember on that occasion the chairman, who was an old Oxford don—and we did not have any scales of assistance in Oxford then; we were too sensitive and individualistic for that saying, when the case of a certain lady was brought forward, " Oh, I do not think her character is very good; give it to her in kind; she is not worth the money." That attitude did pervade the situation.
    As my right hon. Friend said, National Assistance brought up some of the backward boroughs but did not improve some of the progressive municipalities. I think she was candid in asserting that. It may be true that in some progressive Labour boroughs, so far from National Assistance assisting, it had a slightly retrogressive effect, bringing the bottom up but also smoothing off some of the peaks. It moved from democratic control to centralised control, which meant that no longer could local councillors respond to need. We in this House are the only democratic representatives who can respond to need. It is a good and healthy thing, therefore, that we should be sitting here this evening and recognising that we are the only democratic representatives to whom these one million people can go for justice. It is through us that they may get it: through pressure on us. With great respect, I would point out to the Opposition that until this evening I have not heard any great response from them on this question.
    Squadron—Leader A. E. Cooper rose—
    Mr. Crossman Mr. Crossman No doubt individual Members have done it. I noticed the other night pressure from other groups—the road hauliers—and a certain response to demands by the herring industry for a subsidy; but on the issue of these one million people it is a very instructive thing that until this evening, during the five months in which it was necessary to urge reforms, the pressure for these reforms has been wholly from this side of the House and not from the other side.
    Squadron—Leader A. E. Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like to point out to him that in the division which I have the honour to represent and which has a strong Conservative council and has had one for a long time, we have a system operating under these Regulations which no Socialist borough in the United Kingdom operates, by which we subsidise meals for old age pensioners.
    Mr. Crossman: I think I have proved my point. The hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron—Leader A. E. Cooper) knows little about this subject. It is a satisfactory thing, but it is five months too late that we have achieved it. I hope that the next time we shall achieve it earlier. [HON. MEMBERS: " It is your own Front Bench."] I am saying it is a good thing that, because of pressure from behind the Front Bench, this thing has been achieved. A Front Bench which responds in a period of two months rather than in a period of years is not so bad. The response of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was that of a man who would have taken years to move.
    Mr. Macdonald: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Liberal Party, which I have the honour to represent, takes second place to none in its pressure for increased benefits?
    Mr. Crossman: We are all glad to see the mood of anxiety after the event, but we did not see the Liberal Party in all its strength accompanying us on our delegation to the Ministry of National Insurance Perhaps the next time they will come to help us, and not congratulate themselves on the achievement after the event.
    The issue which we have to discuss is. I think, whether these Regulations are sufficient. It is stated that the cost of living has gone up by five per cent., or by between four and five per cent., and that this is an increase of eight per cent., which gives a three per cent. margin. Those who have stated this know that the cost of living index is no index of the life of a man living on National Assistance. The cost of living index is weighted in terms of drink, and of " smokes," which they cannot afford.

    1833
    Unfortunately, the cost of those items which bulk largest in the budget of the very poor have gone up much more than the cost of such items as tobacco and cigarettes, and beer, which bulk larger in the cost of living the better off you are. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that, though the cost of living may have increased by between four and five per cent. only, the increase in the scales, in my view, just about makes up for the increase in the cost of living without any such margin as, I think, the hon. Member for Aylesbury calculated.
    I would rather see the increase which some of us originally proposed, of 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. for the pair, instead of what we have at present, because it would have given a margin. We may find it necessary to keep up this pressure until the House of Commons is aware of its centralised responsibility to those one million unfortunate people who ought to be an absolute first charge upon the community, for the relief of destitution surely conies as an absolute first charge about which there can be no question. That should be done before anything else can be afforded.
    I had the misfortune, or accident, last December to write an article on this subject and I received 300 letters. What I learned from those letters impressed me with the urgency of two points. I found that in half the cases which I put to the Chairman of the Board, a substantial increase had to be granted. That proved to me overwhelmingly that if for half of the cases discretionary relief had to be granted, the scales needed to be raised, because discretionary additions are for specific reasons and not for the general cost of living. The second thing which I learned was that half of the cases were those of people who did not know to what they were entitled. What really appalled me in that large correspondence was the number of people writing to me in desperation, whereas all they had to do was to go to the assistance officer and demand by right what some of them seemed still to regard as unpleasant Poor Law charity.
    I see that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) does not like my talking of their rights. He has not learned that these have been achieved during his absence from this House. I think it is important for us, as Members
    1834
    of the House, to see that there is sufficient publicity for the citizens of this country to know that, since the passing of this new Act, they are entitled by right, and not by charity, to these scales of supplementary assistance, so that there shall not be, as I believe there are in many of our towns today, hundreds of people who literally do not know either that they are entitled to it or that it is not going to be given to them in conditions which offend human dignity.
    I congratulate the Minister, and through her the Chairman of the Assistance Board, on taking away that stigma. One of the things that I look back on over the last five years which has been really Socialist in spirit is removal of the idea that this is Poor Law and is a patronage from above. It was typical when the right hon. Gentleman said how kind Santa Claus was in coming down and giving this. These scales are being raised because these people have the right under our system to he given sufficient to make them free from destitution. No one gives it them from above. It is granted through Parliament as a necessity of that new way of life which we are trying to build.
    One last point—again about wages. I very much hope that the creating of this national minimum standard of living will give an impetus to the lower—paid workers. It is high time that it was given. Though it may create problems, there are some problems which need to be created today.
    10.45 p.m.
    Sir Ian Fraser: May I add my congratulations to those which have been given to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Browne)? It is indeed interesting to those who, like myself, have been in this House for a considerable number of years, to witness the keen interest in matters of this kind which seems to be part of the tradition brought to this House by men from that part of Glasgow.
    I should like also to offer my congratulations to the Minister on her promotion, and I think one should add a word or two of appreciation of our old friend, George Buchanan. If there is a person who would command the confidence of all sides of the House, and the local officers of this Department, he is that person. So far as the local officers are concerned, I must add that I have been surprised and gratified at the courtesy with which they

    1835
    treat the inquiries put to them, both from hon. Members of this House and by constituents whom they are so ready to meet and help.
    In 1925, or certainly in the Conservative Parliament of 1924 to 1929, when Lord Rushcliffe was Minister of Labour—
    Sir H. Williams: He was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour.
    Sir I. Fraser: — I and one or two others—I was a private Member—put down a new Clause to the Determination of Needs Bill; it was accepted as an Amendment, and the effect of it was the exemption of the first £1 a week of the disabled ex—Service man's pension from inclusion when need was being assessed in order to establish what amount of public assistance should be given.
    I have reason to believe, from what I hear, that this exemption of the first £1 of the individual disabled ex—Service man's income is not being observed by the Board. I believe that they are taking into account either the wife's allowance, or the children's allowance, or some of the special hardship or other allowances if given, whereas I am quite certain that Parliament intended, and the law provides, that one pound of the total pension should be excluded from consideration. Will the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, tell me that he will look into this or that I am wrong? But I believe they are not carrying out the law, and the result is to the detriment of the ex—Service man.
    May I say that I am glad that the blind people are continuing to have special consideration? I ask the indulgence of the House to say a sentence or two on this, because there is a special case for consideration of the blind in these matters, since for them living is more costly than it is for other people in similar conditions. In the determination —of need, or the means test. I think it is very important that the House and the country should recognise the fact that the Labour Government have had a very big majority in this House over a period of nearly five years, and are now maintaining the principle of the means test. There is a means test as one of the basic principles of all these allowances to which we are granting increases tonight. It is
    1836
    important that the country should recognise this because continuity of policy and an understanding by all our people of the principles that are involved is vital to the smooth working of our system.
    Since I have sat in this House for 25 years or more and heard in Parliament after Parliament representatives of the Labour Party, including notably George Buchanan, to whom I have made reference, and others, point out the iniquity of the means test as a matter of principle since many elections, individually and otherwise, have been won on this issue; and since this is wholly misleading and utterly contrary to public policy as well as contrary to human nature, it strikes me that it ought to be put on record now that the Labour Party. in two Governments. are committed to the principle of the means test.
    If a man is dealing with his own family and there are in his family four or five boys or girls, some of whom are in work and some of whom are not, some of whom are having good luck and some are not, some of whom are thrifty and earnest and hard—working and some arc feckless and careless and undisciplined—if there is such a family and if one of them comes to father, the head of the house, and says, " Dad, will you help me to set up in business in this way or that way; will you help me about a spot of bother I have got into?" what does father do about it and what do the family expect him to do about it?
    He considers all the circumstances of all the members of his family. He takes into account what they have done, how well they have tried, and also what means they have. If the boy who persistently comes to ask for help happens to be in a good and well—paid job and has married a wife who keeps a little shop, and if the father knows that particular son is best off of the lot, then that son will be the one he will be the last to help, because he will know that the need of the others is greater.
    There is a means test applied by every prudent father in every family in the land, and it cannot be wrong for the nation, in considering its duty towards those who need help, to apply the same kind of test to one of its citizens who needs help from his neighbours. This principle is, therefore, a proper one. It is something that

    1837
    has to be continued and defended in any country which wishes to go on looking after the old, the poor and the needy, instead of giving money wastefully to those who are not in need. Therefore it is important that it should go on record that two Labour Governments, after all they have said for years, have now, at last, under the responsibility of being in office, seen the necessities of the matter.
    Mr. Shurmer: In a different way from that in which the Opposition did it.
    Sir I Fraser: I do not blame right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for changing their minds. The only people who are not to be admired are those who have not the courage to say they have changed their minds. Experience has changed their minds, and it is inevitable when the burden of responsibility falls upon them and they themselves have to administer, that they should find out what are the difficulties of administration.
    I myself believe, with the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), that the care of the poor and the needy and the old is a first charge upon those who are still fit to work and to earn, but I also believe that a prudent management of the national finances will enable a decreasing number of those who are young enough to work and earn to earn more for those who are children or are old or sick. For remember that the old, the sick and the poor can only be helped out of the earnings of the workers and they are a limited number of the population—and a decreasing number. It therefore follows that unless we encourage profitable business which will increase the national income, we cannot find the money to do what should be done in regard to this first charge on the nation's earnings.
    I have promised not to detain the House unduly, but I want to make one observation on the remark of the right hon. Lady about the cost of living scale being a little more than the actual arithmetic would have suggested, the reason being that she cannot make changes frequently and that she wants a certain measure of stability for a year or two. That is a good reason for what she has done, but mark the implication: the implication is that she expects a continuing rise in the cost of living. [HoN. MEMBERS: " No."] That must be so, or there would be no sense in what she said. I
    1838
    regret that very much, because I believe that the only real cure for our troubles is a fundamental Government policy which will reduce the cost of living.
    It must be extraordinarily hurtful to all, as it is to me—to all who have middle class incomes or better, to all hon. Members of this House—to have to think even for a brief time about people to whom an increase of ls. or Is. 6d. a week will make all the difference. It is terrible to think that our fellow citizens in their old age should be concerned whether Is. 6d. a week is to be added to the pittance upon which they live—the ls. 6d. which many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would casually spend in the Smoke Room, without thinking twice about it, in one afternoon.
    That gives pause for thought, and it does seem to me that the whole thought of this Parliament and of this people should be directed towards some way in which this nation can earn more in order that, by earning more, there may be more to divide amongst all. My belief is that only by giving the utmost possible encouragement to those who earn our living for us, namely, those who work by hand and brain and those who save, by enabling the whole nation to make more money and business to be more profitable, can we find higher taxes which can be brought in to support and sustain the allowances for the old, the poor and the needy.
    10.59 p.m.
    Mr. McGovern: In listening to speeches of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), I always have mixed feelings. I do not know whether he got up to sympathise with those who are receiving relief and to express that sympathy in a material manner or whether he got up to try to brand the Government of this country as a Government who have either grudgingly done anything for those who are in need or who are paying money to those who do not require relief. He has a great affliction, but he is a strange mixture. I must say this; he is, I believe, in some ways kindly, but politically he has a vicious trait in expressing his antagonism to the common people and to the Government who respond from time to time and try to uplift them from the poverty from which they suffer. We must remember that we all desire some of the things that he says, but underlying

    1839
    a number of speeches we have heard there has been a bitter resentment of any increase being given to those who are suffering. [Interruption.] After 22 years in public life, I can assess the Dr. Jekylls and Mr. Hydes when they are expressing some sympathy as a cloak for deep—rooted antagonism.
    These Regulations seek to give grants to a large number of people who are suffering in the very depths of poverty even yet in this country. If there is one thing I should have liked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do from the humane point of view and even the political point of view, to help the old age pensioners, the people on relief, widows, and people of the lower income group, it would have been to let them have the entire money raised by the Petrol Duty, neglecting all the little changes in Income Tax and other fields.
    After all, there is one great weakness in dealing with people on assistance and the Government are bound to take account of it. There is no ready—made machine to lay down the grant to be given according to the cost of living in the country, and we are not entitled to pat ourselves on the back and think we are doing something tremendous at this stage. I am always prepared to applaud the spending of £10 million on those on the bottom rung of the ladder. Let it be remembered that hon. Members raised their salaries from £400 to £600 and then from £600 to £1,000.
    Sir H. Williams: You did it !
    Mr. McGovern: I could have gone into the Lobby against it and then drawn it, like some of the Tories. But in raising the salaries of hon. Members, it was stated that the cost of living and the cost of hotel accommodation had risen so steeply that Members could not live to the standard to which they had been accustomed.
    I remember the people at the bottom of the ladder 22 years ago when I entered the old Poor Law body in Glasgow, and we sat day after day on daily relief work. It is an amazing thing that many of these scales in their real monetary value are no better than those that were paid by the Tory council in Glasgow. I would be dishonest if I did not say that. What is the value of the 26s. of 1950 as corm-
    1840
    pared to 1930? Roughly it would be something like 16s. Are we going to say that is a tremendous advance? We would have said that was a meagre standard in 1930. Therefore, we ought to deal, not with one or two shillings, but with what they will buy today compared with what they bought in 1930.
    Dr. Summerskill: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Is it not a fact that in Scotland rent is included?
    Mr. McGovern: One of the great fights in Scotland was the demand made by me in my old parish council days. Mr. Rayner, who was clerk to the parish council before he went to the Public Assistance Board, agreed with me in many discussions that it was a sound way of looking at it. One man who was on the 22s. scale might have a rent of 14s., and another man a rent of 5s. It sometimes meant that you penalised a good father and gave assistance to a bad father who did not want to advance the standard of housing of his family and maybe even drank away the money. We gave at that time 7s. 6d. for the first child and 2s. for a child under two. The scales at that time of a diehard Tory council compared favourably in monetary value with the scales being paid by the Assistance Board. [An HON. MEMBER: " Go over to the other side."] No. I do not need to go to the other side. I have to speak honestly about what I feel. That is the way human progress is made.
    Let us examine the scales being paid today. In my own home I do more than the usual amount of housework and cooking and other things, and I know the prices. Butter went up 4d. a lb. recently; coal is 4s. 6d. a cwt. more in my area; electricity has gone up substantially since the Electricity Board took over; gas has gone BD; all the basic foods have gone up—eggs, bacon, and other things. When we come here and say, " We are giving 2s. or 1s. 6d. more," I say that is nothing for which we need pat ourselves on the back. I do not believe that the standards of payment to the old people, widows, and others in distress and requiring relief, are anything like adequate. The nation is bound to take note of the fact that while some are clamouring for an increase from 5s. to 15s. in the price of their dinners, those

    1841
    at the very bottom are finding even greater difficulties in living at all.
    There is another thing standing out, and that is the question of clothing allowances. When they are given—and they are given very sparingly—it is said, " There is £3 10s. for a suit of clothes." From where is a man going to get a suit for that sum, unless it is some cast—away clothing? Sometimes it depends on the reply of the inspector. I have heard an inspector examining a man and saying, " Is this the suit. That is all right "when it would not have been accepted in any decent company and. the man wearing it was almost ashamed to go and ask for help. It should not be at the whim of an inspector whether the man is given a clothing allowance. He should be given the allowance as of right. A statutory allowance should be fixed, and he should be given it, instead of its depending on whether he makes his approach in the proper manner. Many of the inspectors in this job came from the old Poor Law boards, and they still have in their minds the Poor Law conception as to how the people should be treated.
    I approve of the allowance that has been proposed, but some machinery or statutory body must be found whereby the people who cannot cope with the increase in the cost of living are given adequate relief at the earliest possible moment. A nation, even in its hour of crisis, should give freely to those who are most in need.
    I disagree with the hon. Member who said that this is simply a means test. It is a needs test. If the hon. Member does not know the difference between a needs test and a means test, he should not be in public life. A means test embraces every member of the family. Under the old law sometimes one member of a family, perhaps the son or the daughter, had the responsibility of keeping the father and mother. Sometimes I wonder whether, in other fields, we are justified in giving assistance to all and sundry. There are, for instance, Conservative Members in this House who are drawing family allowances; one of them is a noble Lord.
    Mr. Deputy—Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member ought to pursue that question. He has already had a good deal of latitude.
    Mr. McGovern: I was only going to round it off by saying, in regard to the needs test, that I wonder whether we should pay unlimited amounts of money to people who do not require assistance. The people who are suffering most are very often the people who have been broken on the wheel of a bankrupt capitalist system. Therefore, they ought to be relieved and they ought to be given speedier relief.
    While I cannot oppose the Regulations, I say that they are totally inadequate to meet the needs of the old people and others who require relief. I hope that at some very early date another substantial increase will be given to meet the needs of these people.
    11.12 p.m.
    Mr. Iain MacLeod: am glad to follow the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). Indeed, I think I am the eighth Scotsman who has spoken in this Debate, although I sit for an English seat. The hon. Member's speech included some shrewd slaps at the party on these benches, but it also included something else, and I am sure we were very grateful to hear the financial honesty of his argument. I thought it tore up and threw in the faces of the Socialist Party their hypocrisy in this matter over the last quarter of a century. Indeed, looking at their faces as they listened to him, I felt that they knew it too.
    There is a certain amount of common ground in this matter, and it is beyond question that these increases are closely related to the increased cost of living and to the decline in the value of the £, although of course it is more contentious as to where responsibility for that situation lies. I say to the right hon. Lady that in my view the best comment on these Regulations will not be made in the House tonight; neither has it been made in the Press. It is in the Royal Academy at the moment. It is a picture by Charles Spencelayh about an old man, a pensioner such as we are discussing tonight. He is staring gloomily and unhappily at a small collection of those nuts which the right hon. Lady will remember from a previous Ministerial existence, and of which, no doubt, she hoped she had heard the last. The title of the picture is, " Where the Money Goes." I invite the right hon. Lady to go and look at it. It is perhaps the aptest comment on these Regulations.

    1843
    [Laughter.] I am glad I have cheered up the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) after the depressing speech he has been listening to from his own side.
    Some important issues arise out of these Regulations. The first question is whether these increases are adequate. I do not want to go too closely into the financial side, even if it would be in order. The 26s. is worth what 21s. was worth in 1945. In terms of purchasing power, which is what matters to these people, they will get less than the Coalition Government planned or any of the major political parties promised in 1945. That is true.
    I understand that the Board make draft Regulations to the Minister, who, if she approves them, as she has done in this case, puts them before the House for affirmative resolution. Presumably there is some scientific basis for the recommendations of the Board. Presumably they study the budgets of these people and consider the cost of living and the value of the pound, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Browne), before they come to their conclusions. I was not in the House at the time but I was surprised to read, as was quoted by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) that on 13th December of last year, the then Minister of National Insurance told the House that the Board did not consider that circumstances justified an increase. About a month ago the right hon. Lady told the House these Regulations were to be laid, and said this was the result of periodical review. The question I want to have answered, because it has a real importance in the question of adequacy, is: What does " periodical " mean? If it is not as one would suppose it to be, a continuous process, then when and on what evidence did that review take place? Was there a review by the Board after devaluation and before the announcement made in the House on 13th December?
    We have to make up our minds what we are going to do about the fact that now, even after we ignore the rent element for married couples, the assistance rates are higher than those in National Insurance. That means that the ordinary person with no particular resources beyond National Insurance benefits, in
    1844
    order to get up to what this House recommend tonight as the basic minimum standard—have to undergo a test of need. That is not what any member of any political party who has thought deeply about this hoped for when these great schemes were planned in the Coalition days prior to the legislation formulated by the last Socialist Government. That does not apply to the destitute or near—destitute because we have considerable and I think proper disregards. One can disregard up to £800, if £750 of it is in savings and there are certain other earnings and other disregards which can be made, and the married couple with the rent element is not a long way above the National Assistance scales.
    That problem has consequences which this House must, in due course, face. The next problem was mentioned by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) and the point was also taken by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). It is that these scales are close, and perhaps dangerously close, to the scales being paid to the lowest paid workers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House yesterday that 91 million incomes were between £135 and £250 a year. I do not suggest there is any temptation, or indeed that there will be, for a man to leave full employment and take assistance, but the fact remains that it is more profitable on paper perhaps for a man, say with three children and an income of £4 10s. a week, to take temporary work instead of full—time work and to draw National Assistance.
    It is a problem which we may have to face increasingly in the coming years, and we have to remember the unfortunate experience last year with the sickness benefits at the Royal Ordnance Factories.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Wages are too low.
    Mr. MacLeod: By all means: the hon. Gentleman should tell that to his colleagues. The remedy is not to reduce National Assistance benefits, but to do more for the workers and increase the purchasing power of the £. If hon. Gentlemen opposite want the answer shorter they can have it in two words: " Another Government." We are told that the cost of this will be £81 million, and it may be approaching—and that is the term of the explanatory memorandum —£10 million. I think that figure is

    1845
    absurdly optimistic; it is probably far too low. It seems based on an assumption that though many people will qualify for these grants few will seek them.
    Here I would like to join in something which the hon. Member for Coventry, East, said. I do hope that the Under—Secretary when he replies, because his word will carry more weight than mine, will let it go out again that these moneys are not charity. It is a fund freely voted by Parliament on which these people by Statute have a right to draw. We all know from our own correspondence that although the Poor Law has been abolished, there still remains a reluctance to go to National Assistance. I think it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would emphasise that point from that Box.
    It seems to me that the other matter which this calculation does not take into account is the fact that as savings dwindle and as the scales of National Assistance reflect the growing cost of living and life in this country, so inevitably the cost of assistance in relation to insurance must soar and they will go up together. I believe for these reasons that the figure of f10 million, which is the outside figure mentioned, is a considerable underestimate. That is for the future. For the present we have these Regulations before us tonight. No one, I am certain, would grudge these moneys. The only question on which we have heard there is considerable anxiety is whether or not they are adequate. I think we must say that approval of these Regulations tonight does not in any way convey approval of the financial policy which is the story behind these Regulations, for they make it abundantly clear, just as the Budget made clear, that no one suffers more from Socialism than the poorest of the poor.
    11.25 p.m.
    Mr. Mikardo: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain MacLeod), and I tried to find out whether he was arguing that we ought to give National Assistance recipients more or give them less. In some parts of his speech he seemed to be arguing one way and in other parts he seemed to be arguing to the contrary. He talked about these sales being, to use his expression, dangerously near the lower wage levels, and seemed to suggest that they were too high. In other parts, he seemed to be trying to argue, as he did
    1846
    at the end of his speech, that they were too low. He referred, for example, to the statement on 13th December that the rates were not then going to be raised.
    The hon. Member and his hon. Friends have been showing a lot of solicitude this evening for the National Assistance recipients. I wonder if he can tell us which of his hon. Friends, on that occasion, protested against the announcement made by the Minister. None at all. We had a Debate which was initiated by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) in which some hon. Members on the other side of the House sought to put pressure upon the then Minister to do then what is being done now. Not only did no hon. Member opposite join in, but no hon. Member opposite was present.
    This solicitude this evening seems to be very new—found indeed; yet the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to get up and talk about hypocrisy after the performance which he and his hon. Friends have put up. The hon. Gentleman followed the lead set by his Front Bench, and later followed by some of his hon. Friends, like the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), of welcoming these new Regulations with the warmth and cordiality and enthusiasm of a vegetarian who finds a caterpillar in his salad. This ought to be a joyous occasion, because there is nothing more joyous which a man can do than contribute to doing some good where it is most needed.
    One could have hoped that we would pass these Regulations tonight without any observations being made in a spirit of dissension and faction. I was grievously disappointed when, at the beginning of the Debate, the right hon. Gentleman who opened for the Oppostion departed from that. I think he would have been well advised in his own interest, and in the interest of his party, if he had not gone into the history of public assistance. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about that history in terms of what Joseph Chamberlain, Mr. Asquith, and Mr. Lloyd George said, and what a number of Members of another place said; but the history of National Assistance was not made in this House, or in another place. It was made in the public assistance offices. Those who compare what used to happen there with the present work of the National Assistance Board will not agree with the hon. Mem-

    1847
    ber for Morecambe and Lonsdale that there has been any continuity of policy, and they will not agree with the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) that what is being done tonight, and what was done on 5th July, 1948, is merely an extension in degree of what had gone before. [Interruption.] The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieutenant—Colonel Elliot) has not been here throughout the Debate.
    Lieut.—Colonel Elliot: I have been in touch with the problems of National Assistance longer than the hon. Member.
    Mr. Mikardo: I think the right hon. Gentleman might allow the Debate to proceed without the intermittent eruptions of his subterranean volcano.
    Lieut.—Colonel Elliot: I want no cheek from the hon. Member.
    Mr. Mikardo: That, Mr. Deputy—Speaker, is something which I should have thought would have been decided by you and not by the right hon. and gallant Member opposite. May I repeat that in July, 1948, there was a revolution in kind; if there had not been a single penny increase, we should have revolutionised this matter if only by the change of the attitude of the National Assistance Board to its applicants and a change in the behaviour of the officers of that Board. The hon. Member for Lonsdale and Morecambe stated, in a tribute to the officers of the Board—in which I join gladly with him—that he was surprised and gratified at the courtesy of those officers and I took down the remark when he made it. Why is he surprised that these officers should show courtesy? Perhaps, because he is only remembering the days when they were not so.
    Sir I. Fraser: Since the hon. Member refers to me, I would say that, even after the benevolent regime of the last five years, there are still many civil servants who treat the public as though they did not want to sell the public anything. I give credit in this respect to the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Colonial Secretary; I give credit where it is due.
    Mr. Mikardo: I gladly join with the hon. Gentleman in that tribute, but I
    1848
    still repeat that his surprise probably arises from the fact that the history of the National Assistance Board is such that the story was once a very different one from what it now is. Let us understand that it is not what Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, or Mr. Lloyd George said about these things. What people compare in this matter—and I have the dubious advantage of having been born in a street whose people had to go to the National Assistance Board—are the conditions obtaining today and the fact that the history was made in the days when applicants went to the Board and were made to stand in a shabby building for hours on end merely to give them a feeling of their place in life, and then have their affairs discussed in the hearing of other people. That does not happen today. If those people had a gramophone, they had to sell it; if they had three table—cloths for their front room, they had to sell two before there was a pennyworth of assistance.
    Mr. Shurmer: And their pianos and their furniture.
    Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member for Lonsdale and Morecambe seemed to make a speech, not to welcome these Regulations, but in a passionate desire to get it on the record that the means test is being continued. With respect to him, I would say that he just does not understand how the means test operated.
    Sir I. Fraser rose
    Mr. Mikardo: If the hon. Member will allow me, I want to tell him how it operated. It was a household means test, of all the earnings of every child, or anyone else in the house. It was all considered before any member of the household got anything at all. My constituency has a lot of Welshmen in it, living a long way from Wales, and the reason is because, if the young man was to avoid the penury which his father knew, through no fault of his own, he had to run away from home so that his father could get some assistance.
    Sir I. Fraser: The hon. Member may have had the experience to which he refers, but I have spent 20 years in this House, and if I had not learned what I know from my own experience, I should have learned it from George Buchanan, and others, long before the hon. Member

    1849
    came into this House. He may have been born in a street where these things went on and has risen above it, but he need not boast about it. Others have risen above it, and let us hope it will continue to be possible for people to rise above it. I was not defending every aspect of the means test since the Gladstonian era, but pointing out that the principle is an inevitable one so long as there is any need in the land.
    Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman, who has taken a very long time in his intervention to explain that he has not got the excuse of ignorance, must know there is absolutely no comparison between what happened in the old days and what happens at the present time. There is no way now in which families can be broken by an application for national assistance. All that is required of earning children in the family is that they should bear some share of the rent of the place and comparable overheads for the space they occupy, but they are not required to bleed themselves and make themselves poor before their father and mother can get assistance. This is the revolution that has taken place and this is why it is nonsense to talk about any continuity of policy.
    Some hon. Members opposite have been at pains to point out that this increase is a reflection of the rise in the cost of living. There was a considerable rise in the cost of living in the 1920's and 1930's. We did not have a stable pound then. Somebody tonight talked of a stable pound. There was no stable pound in the 1920's and 1930's, but there was no increase in the National Assistance.
    Mr. Shurmer: A decrease.
    Mr. Mikardo: Yes, there was a decrease while the cost of living was going up. It ill becomes hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk derogatively about the Government responding after only five months in this matter, when they had Governments in office who responded to an increase in the cost of living by reducing the level of assistance. [An HON. MEMBER: " The cost of living went down."] It sometimes went down.
    Mr. Shurmer: They do not understand. They do not know anything about it.
    Lieut.—Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Look up your figures.
    Mr. Mikardo: I have looked up my figures. The hon. and gallant Member has not a monopoly of having studied the period 1920–1930. In fact, of course, there were fluctuations in prices and I repeat that all the time there was a general over—all rise. [Interruption.] Of course there was, and a general fall in the scales. Nobody on the opposite side, who then would have been sitting on this side of the House, protested about it at all.
    For goodness sake, if as a House of Commons—because the right hon. Gentleman said his party were going to support these Regulations and the Liberals also said so—we are going to set our hands this evening to this worthwhile task, let us do it in a spirit of generosity. Let us not do it in a carping, reluctant spirit. Let us recognise that what the Minister is doing tonight is to remove what was pretty well the last major defect in the system of National Assistance.
    The Board has removed the defect that existed in the old days—that public assistance always tried to find excuses for not helping people. My experience of the officers of the Board is that they strain every nerve now to try to find some reason for helping people, and sometimes they go outside the Regulations to do it. In the old days, the public assistance authorities used to keep their activities dark in case anybody should find out about public assistance and apply. Nowadays the Board go to tremendous trouble to publicise their activities, and the Minister announced a week or two ago that she would insert a notice about this in the pension books to publicise it still further. Now we have brought the scales to an amount which more than compensates for the rise in the cost of living. Let us do it in a spirit of responsibility, recognising that the millions who have to depend on the National Assistance Board should have no more of the halfhearted, reluctant welcome which we have heard from the other side of the House tonight.
    11.40 p.m.
    Mr. Molson: I am confident that I shall be in Order if I reply briefly to the speech to which we have just listened. The Regulations before the House do not relate to the household means test, which was abolished by legis

    1851
    lation passed by this House in 1941 and in 1943. The argument which my hon. Friends have been advancing is simply that under the legislation passed when the present Secretary of State for the Colonies was Minister of National Insurance, those people who contribute to the National Insurance Scheme are entitled as a matter of right to draw certain benefits and, under the National Assistance Act and the Regulations made thereunder, the amount which is paid to individuals who can show they are in need is determined.
    My hon. Friends have been pointing out in reply to what was said by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and at greater length by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), and emphasised by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), that in arriving at the payments that can be made under these Regulations those responsible for the administration have to take into account the needs and means of those who lay claim to that assistance. That is the parallel which has been established between the system to which these Regulations give effect and the means test which has been so much criticised by hon. Members opposite.
    I come to the question of why it has been necessary for these Regulations to be laid. The Minister of National Insurance skated over the matter very rapidly and very lightly, but in fact there has been a very considerable increase in the cost of living since the last Regulations were made. Therefore it has been necessary to alter the scales in order to take that into account. I find that between July, 1948, and March, 1950, there has been an increase of 4.6 per cent. in the interim index of retail prices. The increases which are provided for under these scales vary from 14.29 per cent. down to 4 per cent., and the average is 7.71 per cent. For husband and wife the increase is 8.75 per cent., and for a person living alone it is 8.33 per cent.
    Therefore it is clear that the right hon. Lady, in laying these Regulations, has covered, and slightly more than covered, the increase which has taken place, and which I said was only 4.7 per cent. It would not be right, as was emphasised by the hon. Member for Coventry, East, to take these figures as being conclusive,
    1852
    because, in the case of those who are admittedly at the lowest scale, the items which have increased very much in cost, like tobacco and beer, do not enter to the same extent as the necessaries of life, and in the case of clothing there has been an increase from that time of about 6 or 7 per cent., fuel 4 per cent. and food as much as 10 per cent.
    Having made as close an examination as I can, it appears to me that the Board has made as good and as accurate a calculation as was possible in order to bring the scales up to the same purchasing power as the scales laid down in 1948. I hope that there will not be any great further increase in the cost of living, but it was only the day after the right hon. Lady informed us that these Regulations would be made that the Minister of Food indicated to us that there would be a substantial increase in the cost of a number of foodstuffs. It is obviously of the utmost importance that these scales shall not constantly change up and down for every small fluctuation that takes place in the cost of living. Like some of my hon. Friends, I feel some doubt whether these scales will prove adequate for any considerable time to come, but at the same time I do think it is extremely undesirable that there should be constant changes for any small change in the cost of living.
    I want once more to refer—as has already been done by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain MacLeod)—to one of the most striking changes that has taken place. When I spoke in June, 1948, I drew the attention of the then Minister of Pensions to the very small difference that existed between the rate of the retirement pension and the rate of the assistance scales. Now that difference has ceased completely to exist in the case of the single adult. In these scales the assistance is exactly the same as the retirement pension, and for a married couple the assistance will be Is. 6d. more. When we also take into account that under those scales the whole of a reasonable rent can be paid, it means that these scales do indicate that in order to avert destitution larger sums in total will have to be paid than are provided for in the National Insurance scheme.
    The Colonial Secretary referred on the last occasion to the possibility that we had reached the limit of what the flat

    1853
    rate of contribution could do in the way of providing benefit, but it is quite obvious that if we are to have a steely decline over the next 10, 20, and 30 years in the purchasing value of the pound, then the main purpose which we all had in mind at the time of the passing of the Insurance Act, that the retirement pension should be enough to safeguard the aged from destitution, will prove to be inadequate with the rising cost of living. An ever—larger proportion of the ever—increasing aged population will find themselves obliged to go to the Assistance Board to have their pensions supplemented. These are financial factors which we have to take into account and it is the duty of hon. Members on this side to draw attention to these dangers and disadvantages.
    We have two different scales of payment to the aged. One is based on a strict actuarial calculation of the maximum that can be paid when the contributions are a flat rate at what is now very nearly the highest level that the lowest paid people can afford to pay. At the same time, we have these assistance scales, which are calculated on what is the minimum payment necessary to avert destitution. It is when we look at it from that point of view that we express doubt whether these scales will prove adequate if the present tendency for the purchasing power of the £ to decline continues during the next few years.
    So it is that we give our support—and not grudging support—to the proposals in these scales, but at the same time we are bound to draw attention to the increasing financial difficulties and dangers, and to say once more—and I end on what I admit to be a controversial note—that we consider that the whole policy of this Socialist Government makes it inevitable that the internal and external purchasing value of the £ will continue to decline.
    11.53 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Bernard Taylor): We have had a most interesting and useful Debate on what is to all of us a great human problem, that of providing for those who, through a variety of causes and often through no fault of their own, have few or no resources, and whom it is the privilege of the more fortunate—and our privilege as hon. Members of this House—to look after to the best of our ability.
    1854
    I should like first to make one or two general observations, and to remind the House of the position under the National Assistance Act. It is important that we should get this clearly in mind, or we shall be guilty of mistaken ideas and policies. My right hon. Friend has no power under the Act to take the initiative in proposing amendments to Regulations dealing with the determination of need. That initiative lies with the National Assistance Board, and if at any time they think that, in all the circumstances, amendments of the Regulations are called for they can take the necessary steps. Who is in a better position than the Board to take the initiative in this matter, since the Board's officers are in daily and intimate contact with the special problems of those in need? I join those who have paid a well deserved tribute to the noble work which is being done by the National Assistance Board.
    I would also remind hon. Members that the scale rates at present in operation were approved by the House as recently as June, 1948, and the introduction of these rates in that year meant—I should like the House to take note of this—that hundreds of thousands of people in need received substantial increases in their weekly incomes. Now, less than two years later, the Board, having taken the initiative, have proposed the increases in the existing rates which my right hon. Friend so lucidly and in so interesting a manner explained to the House earlier this evening.
    I do not think that anyone who looks at the position reasonably and impartially could accuse the National Assistance Board of being tardy in discharging their statutory function. Nor have the Government themselves lost any time in submitting these Regulations to help those in need for the approval of this House. If the Regulations receive such approval—and I hope and believe that they will, judging from the speeches which we have heard tonight—the new rates will be in operation by the middle of next month.
    This Debate has ranged very wide indeed, and I believe that more has been said about various economic theories than about the value of the Regulations themselves. There is little that I can add to what my right hon. Friend has said by way of explanation of the Regulations. After her lucid speech I am sure that the

    1855
    House is now fully aware what the Regulations mean, and how they will affect those who are already receiving assistance. We have also been reminded by my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members what will be the estimated cost of the proposals which will be a direct charge on the Exchequer funds.
    One or two points have been raised by hon. Members with which I should like to deal. I am sure we were all very pleased when the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) in a reasonable speech felicitously and generously lavished good wishes and congratulations upon my right hon. Friend on her appointment to this new and important office. He had a lot to say about the increase in the cost of living. I hope hon. Members opposite will treat what I am now going to say with great seriousness and not with jocularity.
    My main comment on the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that it is the desire and the intention of this Government to prevent increases in the cost of living. In looking at these National Assistance scales that is something of great importance. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—and I admit immediately that he was right that the justification for these Regulations is the rise in the cost of living. It redounds to the credit of this Government, that as soon as the draft Regulations were submitted by the National Assistance Board, they brought these Regulations to the House to provide more adequate financial assistance for those who are in need. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the means test and many references have been made to that by speakers on both sides. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and hon.Gentlemen opposite that if there is any body of people who know anything about the degrading iniquities of the means test, it is Members on this side.
    The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael)—to whom we always listen on this subject with great interest because we know that in the field of assistance to the needy he has had a wide experience, and we are always pleased to have his contribution—asked me three questions. Without going into details, I hope the answers I shall be able to provide will satisfy him. My hon.
    1856
    Friend drew attention to the fact that young persons in the 16–18 group are to get only ls. of an increase compared with Is. 6d. for those in the 11–16 group. I would remind him that the rate for the 16–18 group was increased substantially by 2s. 6d. in 1948, whereas children under 16 at that time got no increase. The rate for the other adolescent age group between 18 and 21 has been increased by ls. 6d., from 17s. 6d. to 19s. This increase is almost exactly in proportion to the increase in the adult rate and cannot really be substantially criticised.
    Mr. Carmichael: I was not criticising the increase of Is. 6d. for those between 18 and 21. I asked why, having granted Is. 6d. to that group, the right hon. Lady grants only is. to the preceding group.
    Mr. Taylor: I think that if my hon. Friend will look at what I have said tomorrow, he will find that the point has been met. His next question was in respect of those in local authority homes. It is the case that people in " Part III " accommodation provided for under the National Assistance Act by the major local authorities will not participate in the increases which are proposed in the Regulations, for they are not directly affected by the increased cost of food and fuel. His third point was in regard to householders and non—householders. I would remind my hon. Friend that ever since the institution in 1934 of the Assistance Board, for reasons which are explained in the Report of the National Assistance Board for 1948, this difference has always existed. The Board themselves feel that it is reasonable on account of the additional commitments in the form of fuel and light and so on which fall on those who are householders and live by themselves.
    We had a most interesting, and if I may say so lively, maiden speech from the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Browne). I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on the factual budget of old age pensioners which he presented. While the hon. Member was giving that budget to the House, I could not but reflect upon the Tory attitude to those in need over the years. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), whom we always enjoy hearing upon occasions of this kind, observed that my right hon. Friend had performed

    1857
    a miracle in extracting the £8,500,000, upon which these Regulations are based, from the Treasury. May I say that whether it be a miracle or not, the Treasury gave it without any hesitation for this purpose.
    The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Macdonald) emphasised a point, as did also the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, regarding the justification for the proposed increases in the light of the rise in the cost of living. He also asked a question, the answer to which is that those people who are not now receiving National Assistance and who under these Regulations, become entitled to it, will have to apply to the Board before they can have the benefit of the increases.
    The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) put what I thought was a very important question regarding one of the disregards under the National Assistance Act. He was referring to the disregard of the 20s. disability pension. It had come to his notice, I think he said, that this provision had not always been adhered to by the Board. I want, on the advice I have, to deny that allegation categorically. The disregard of the 20s. of these disability pensions is being observed in every case. If the hon. Member is still in doubt on that point and will let me have particulars of any case or cases which he has in mind, I shall he only too happy to look into them.
    Mr. Macdonald: I asked a second question which was of greater importance than the first. That was, whether the right hon. Lady had in mind any provision for a sliding scale should the cost of living rise, and whether under these Regulations the scales would rise with any rise in the cost of living.
    Mr. Taylor: I think that my right hon. Friend went fully into that, and explained it completely. There are many things which I would like to say tonight, but the hour is late.
    Mr. Hubbard: Before the hon. Gentleman goes on, could he say one word about the widow who has to pay insurance contributions from the National Assistance scale? Does she have to pay?
    Mr. Taylor: Under the National Insurance Act, a widow in receipt of a 10s.
    1858
    widow's pension, if she wants to qualify for the retirement pension at the age of 60 years, will find it necessary to pay National Insurance contributions—if she is not in employment they will be at the rate of 3s. 8d.
    We have gone a very long way on this question of meeting the needs of the poorest members of the community. Let us compare the position today with that which once obtained; and to illustrate that change which has taken place over the years, I would like to recount an incident told me many times when I was a boy. There was a man who met with a fatal accident and it was in the days when there were no compensation provisions, no widow's pension, no anything, except recourse to the old Poor Law. This man's widow was left with four children, aged from 12 years downwards, and so she applied to the appropriate board of guardians and was told that, for herself, there would be nothing. She was able—bodied and, although she !had four children, she would have to go to work. The eldest of the four was drafted into what, in those days, was called farm service. That generous board of guardians gave the widow, for the remaining children, half—a—crown a week. I repeat, half—a—crown for the three of these young children. I was in a very reflective mood when I heard some of the speeches from hon. Members opposite tonight, because the man who met with that fatal accident was my grandfather, and the eldest child of the four was my own mother.
    I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House must be shocked at such indifference, so greatly has the climate of public opinion changed. It can truthfully be said that the welfare of the poor is one of the main concerns of this Government, and I am proud of the record of the Labour Government in this particular field since 1945. It is not enough, however, for us to pass humanitarian legislation, as this, and the preceding government, have done, especially legislation designed to meet the particular needs of the individual, unless it is administered in a humane and discriminating spirit.
    Here I should like to join with other hon. Members in paying my tribute to the work of the officers of the National. Assistance Board; work which calls for

    1859
    high qualities of sympathy and understanding, and which often requires the greatest degree of tact and delicacy. There was a time, as we have been reminded to—night, when the assistance officer was not universally popular. He was associated in the public mind with the means test and with large scale unemployment. In those days many people felt it was something degrading to apply for assistance, and they understandably preferred to fight a lonely, and often unequal, battle against poverty.
    Today this attitude of the public has changed. The Board's officers are recognised for what they are—friends in need whose help can be called in without any fear of humiliation. It is largely the officers themselves who are responsible for this welcome change of attitude which has taken place in this field. Never in our history has so much been done to alleviate poverty and to assist those in need. I do not say poverty has been completely eliminated, but I do say this in all sincerity, that we are doing and will continue to do all that men of goodwill can in our present economic circumstances. I hope the House will give its unanimous approval to the Regulations which are before it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved:
    "'That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th April, be approved."
    "BLACK LIST " SCHOOLS
    Motion made and Question proposed, " That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]
    12.16 a.m.
    Dr. King: The matter that I raise tonight is one that, speaking with a sense of moderation and careful choice of words, I venture to describe as a national scandal although it has obtained over the past 45 years. I wish to raise the question of those schools which appear on the Ministry of Education's " black list." In February, 1908, the Board of Education began to compile a list of the worst schools in England. The criterion of accommodation which they used was that schools should provide accommodation of not
    1860
    less than ten square feet for older children and nine square feet for infants. This standard was low enough in all conscience. Actually, it was the minimum which had been laid down in the 1870 Act for older children and in 1898 for infant children. So this standard itself was already 40 years old.
    The " black list " of schools took three years to complete and in 1910, when the Board reported on these " black list " schools, the immediate result was to write—off two thousand schools as unfit for children's accommodation and a quarter million school places as places which should not be occupied by children. To escape being on the " black list," a school—I quote from the Board's Report—
    " must not, at all events appreciably, prejudice the health of the scholars."
    So that schools which did more than minor damage to a child's health went on to the " black list " and had to be replaced.
    Incidentally, in the same yea r—1910— the Board of Education received a report from the Playgrounds Commisison which recommended that school playgrounds be 15 square feet per child within the next 15 years. A minority report was signed from the Liverpool Diocesan Authorities pleading for Church schools that this was extravagant and unreasonable, asking why not five square feet per child and suggesting they should go on to the playgrounds in shifts; whilst the Winchester College master, who was chairman of the Winchester Education Committee, went on record in the Minority Report, that elementary schools should not play football or cricket as school games and he opposed the 15 square feet of playground for school children.
    So that a school which was condemned in that year as being a bad school, must indeed have been a very bad school. When the Board drew up its list, it might well say, as it did in its Report,
    " for ordinary sanitary and hygienic conditions it had not erred on the side of severity,"
    especially when it is remembered that the " black list " did not include schools which had three or less classes in one room. In 1910, presenting this list, the Board said that it would take five years' steady work to get rid of these " black list " schools. I speak tonight because that

    1861
    has not been completed, 40 years later. The first world war put a stop to school building and during that war His Majesty's Inspectors were busy compiling lists and checking up on the " black list " schools.
    It might have been expected that when the 1918 Education Act came into force and with the great burst of idealism which followed the end of the war, the " black list " schools might disappear but, with the Geddes Axe economies that followed the war, the work of His Majesty's Inspectors was ignored and for the first seven years after the war nothing was done about the " black list." In 1923 and 1924, the first Labour Government turned again to this question and drew up a " black list " again. In its Report for that year, the Board of Education said:
    " Even now much of the original task still remains to be completed, and many buildings have further deteriorated from age."
    This Report spoke of the " cruel dilemma " in the " black list " schools where children were either promoted according to ability and suffered overcrowding in small rooms, or were promoted prematurely or tardily according to the size of the next room to which they were to go. In the year 1925, 16,000 classrooms had two classes in them, 179 had even four classes and 20,000 classes contained more than 50 pupils, so that the " black list " of 2,000 of the worst schools must indeed have been " black."
    Between 1925 and 1930 quite a lot was done, and by 1930 1,000 of the " black list " school had been dealt with either actually or on paper. Then came the National Government of 1931 to carry out the " strong Government and effective measures " for which another place was pleading last week. These included the sacrifice of our children by the virtual ending of the attack on " black list " schools. The school building programme was slashed and the rate of disappearance dropped to a mere 60 a year. In vain in this House in 1942 George Hicks, then a Member of Parliament, pleaded with the Government to let unemployed building workers get on with the job of rebuilding the nation's worst schools. From 1934, as if to conceal this false economy, the Board of Education ceased to give detailed progress reports on the " black list " schools. The problem shrank in the
    1862
    Annual Report of the Board from a paragraph to a sentence but the real problem got worse year by year.
    Now, in 1950, there are still more than 600 of the original 2,800 " black list " schools. In the last 16 years, only 330 have gone and in the last 12 years, only 200 have gone. The purpose of this brief survey is to show that on the " black list " today are schools which were condemned in 1925, schools which were condemned in the First World War, schools condemned in the list of 1908, and schools which in 1950 are not conforming to building standards laid down in the Education Act of 1870. The House will not wonder when I call this a scandal. I have not time to analyse the cause of this neglect, nor to describe in detail the conditions of the " black list " schools, some of which I have visited.
    The White Paper of 1943 attacked these schools, not merely on educational grounds, but on grounds of hygiene and ventilation and charged them with depriving children of " decent and healthy " surroundings. The Minister who is to reply tonight spoke in September, 1948, of buildings " unsatisfactorily lit and ventilated where the walls are sometimes damp."
    The National Union of Teachers' Consultative Committee's Report on Nursery Schools of 1950 mentions some of the worst features of these schools. Here are some quotations from the Report:
    "A school condemned in 1904. No cloakrooms or washplaces. No corridors. Electric light all day."
    Another reads:
    "The sanitary arrangements vary in degrees of horror. I think some of us hardly realise the extent to which some of the closets are terrifying to a child….
    I could take you to schools within two miles of Whitehall where no self—respecting civil servant would work for a single day."
    The Chief Sanitary Inspector for Winchester reporting on a school there in April, 1949, spoke of the dark insanitary trough closet and said:
    " Because of the fear of the darkness it was learned that the younger children have been known to urinate in their class rooms."
    And that school is not bad enough to be on the black list. Here are extracts from H.M. Inspectors' recent reports on seven primary schools in one county:
    " Five rooms, three of which are passage rooms containing two classes apiece separated! by small curtains.

    1863
    One class is housed in a basement room.
    Premises consist of two rooms, one small and dark.
    Class I contains children with an age—range of 8 to 13.
    The room occupied by the lowest class of 38 is so small that they are literally packed into it.
    Seventy—eight infants in one room. No free space—access along the rows is well nigh impossible.
    Buildings and surround of this school are in a deplorable condition … a rural slum."
    The Ministry's pamphlet " School and Life " asks for a " strong sense of urgency " about the primary schools, and I am demanding the same strong sense of urgency to reduce the " black list " schools. I urge hon. Members to read the Minister's Report for 1948, and to remember that it describes schools on the whole which are not bad enough for the black list. Here is one quotation from the Report:
    " The lavatories must be as old as the school building, that is, 100 years old. They flush only three times a day and stink in summer; the pans are over a foot in diameter, and those with wooden seats missing are dangerous to small children."
    Bad buildings, bad sanitation, unhealthy overcrowding, ugliness where beauty is essential—particularly in the old village schools, but often in the towns —lack of amenities, these are the grim features of thousands of the nation's primary schools. They reach their grimmest peak in the ' black list " schools. I want the nation to do something about it, and do something now. I shudder to ask for a five—year plan after 45 years of failure, and the five—year plan of 1910, but something must be done.
    Last week I had the joy of visiting Hertfordshire's new schools where, by the systematic use of non—traditional materials, they are resolutely tackling the school building programme. I had the joy of seeing 300 infants surrounded by beauty and space in a school built in 12 months. I cannot convey what it means to teachers and children who were being taught quite recently in a number of classes in one large hall.
    I want to ask for a planned attack by first—aid measures on the "black list " schools. Let us pool the experience local authorities gained during the first post—war building programmes. Let us
    1864
    devise, if necessary, a prefabricated building which can be put up to replace the worst of the " black list " schools. I want the Minister to call the attention of the local authorities and Church folk to their " black list " schools and insist on a time limit for their replacement.
    In all my pleadings on this matter outside the House the greatest problem has been to convince the perfectionists, who want our children to wait for the glorious new schools now going up in greater numbers than before, but still not quickly enough. I think Hertfordshire points the way. It plans to build 175 schools in 15 years, and has a programme for building 20 schools in one year. I am told that even that programme could be speeded up if the Ministry's building year and the financial year were permitted to coincide, so that site preparation could take place in the spring. But I believe that even Hertfordshire has its " black list " schools still. I would appeal to those who have land to give it for this purpose. I appeal to those who believe in Church schools to prove their faith by going all out to replace Church schools on the " black list." I appeal to those who have architectural and building skill to devise the best and most speedy ways of providing new schools inside the bounds drawn by the economic budget.
    At another time I shall plead against false economies in the nation's investment in education and in the replacement of schools. Tonight I am asking for practical steps. I would ask local education authorities to be less isolated, to pool the knowledge they have gained. I would ask the Ministry to implement the report of its own Working Party of 1948 on standardisation and prefabrication, and that it should take the lead there suggested to promote and co—ordinate research, to set up a permanent exhibition of school building, and to act as a live centre in a great national drive for schools. I want the initiative to come from the Ministry in a drive to destroy this 45 years old plague of the " black list " schools. The Report for 1948 says:
    " We have to run faster even if we want to stand still … but it will not be enough to stand still."
    We are standing still on the " black list " schools. I raise this matter tonight because I think it is a matter of urgent importance, and I ask the Minister to take note of what has been said, and to

    1865
    do what he can to end this evil, which has been with us 50 years too long.
    12.32 a.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): I agree that this is a matter of urgent importance and of great interest to all hon. Members, and I shall be as brief as I can in replying to what the hon. Member has said. He recalled that in 1948 some mention was made by me of the appalling condition of certain schools, and my right hon. Friend also drew attention to this in his Report of 1948. He regretted the appalling conditions under which some teachers and pupils still have to work, and this somewhat unusual frankness was noted with approval at the time. But frankness must be matched with determination, and we must try to see what is being done to meet this acute problem.
    First of all, let me say that the " black list " itself is now quite obsolete, and that to work from it is likely to lead to confusion and distract attention from the larger issues we are facing today. It was framed in 1925, and it was only a rough—and—ready compilation to supplement the Board's information regarding conditions in what were then public elementary schools. It was not a comprehensive list, nor did the inclusion of a school in it mean that the school should be closed. This list is entirely superseded by the surveys made by the local authorities for their development plans.
    Dr. King: I am aware that new plans have been made throughout the country, but the " black list " schools remain, whether their name disappears or not. The counties' plans now are revealing a far bigger number of bad schools.
    Mr. Hardman: I am not going to dispute that. I am simply saying that to work from the " black list " framed 25 years ago does lead to confusion when we are faced with the future building programme and the proposals, spread over a number of years, revealed in the development plans.
    I should like to say a word or two about the Ministry's building programme, in the light of the plea which we have heard tonight. I am concerned with the special steps which the Ministry are taking to replace the worst schools,
    1866
    whether they were ever on the " black list " or not. The plain fact is that we are already meeting the most urgent needs of the day to the very limit of our capacity. There are literally no further steps we can take in order to deal specifically with the conditions to which my hon. Friend has called attention, unless we divert manpower and materials at present devoted to providing school accommodation for housing estates, to meet the increased birth rate, and to meet the most imperative needs of technical education. I am sure we shall all admit how important it is in this critical period of our economic development to meet the needs of technical education.
    As regards our building programme, I think we can show, and will show more fully in the Debate later today, what remarkable expansion has taken place. I will only mention tonight that at the end of 1946 we had only £10 million worth of schools under construction, whereas at the end of 1949 it had expanded to some £70 million worth of school construction. I agree that even this is only barely able to keep pace with the demands of the three factors that I have mentioned—the housing estates, the rise in the birth rate and the need for extending technical education. We are, therefore, not yet in a position to undertake new building solely to improve existing conditions.
    It is all very well to talk in terms of a special drive which my hon. Friend mentioned tonight, but when one has to deal with particular cases with limited labour and material, then the choice is simply between leaving a housing estate without a school, or failing to provide any accommodation at all for children of school age, in order, on the other hand, to improve uncomfortable conditions at an existing school where all essential maintenance can be carried out. This is not the hon. Member's intention, I know. He does not want to divert energy, labour and materials from the essential purpose I have mentioned, but I fear it is the logic of his argument. It is obvious that at a time when there are many urgently competing demands on severely limited resources, every individual project which is permitted to start must be the most urgent for the area concerned, all things considered.
    In conclusion, I would say that we are not complacent about this problem

    1867
    at the Ministry. If, therefore, I cannot accept the proposals of my hon. Friend it is not for want of sympathy with his aims, but simply because there are more urgent demands that must be met in the immediate future with present limited resources.
    12.37 a.m.
    Major Hicks—Beach: I am very glad of an opportunity of saying a few words about " black list " schools. I was pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the " black list " schools are now completely abolished. I also welcome the statement he has made that priority is to be given as far as possible to improve the conditions in schools.
    If I may make one suggestion, as a manager of a school, and not a " black list " school, nor one that is even condemned, it is this: Instead of going
    1868
    ahead with these somewhat grandiose schemes which have been produced by the local education authorities, the Ministry should try to improvise more in the schools we already have. In the school in which I am interested we have had considerable difficulty with the local education authorities in getting proper sanction for the very small changes we want to make. Admittedly it is a Church school. I sincerely believe that a great deal could be done in this interim period if we could persuade local education authorities to give more attention to improvisation, while we are waiting until the bigger schemes to which we all look forward can be put into operation, which I appreciate cannot be done at the present time.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to One o'Clock a.m.

  TANGANYIKA (SISAL ESTATES)
  TANGANYIKA (SISAL ESTATES)
  EAST AFRICA (TEACHER TRAINING CENTRES)
  EAST AFRICA (TEACHER TRAINING CENTRES)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Czechoslovak Plums
  Czechoslovak Plums
  Bacon (Price Tickets)
  Bacon (Price Tickets)
  Tea Ration (Prosecution)
  Tea Ration (Prosecution)
  Liquid Milk (Consumption)
  Liquid Milk (Consumption)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Liberty Exchange
  Liberty Exchange
  Installation, Wembley
  Installation, Wembley
  Kiosk, Princes Risborough
  Kiosk, Princes Risborough
  Glasgow
  Glasgow
  Development Work
  Development Work
  Carlisle
  Carlisle
  London Directory
  London Directory
  Schools
  Schools
  Caithness
  Caithness
POST OFFICE
  Work, Minehead—Taunton Road
  Work, Minehead—Taunton Road
  Collections and Deliveries
  Collections and Deliveries
  Engineering Officers' Association
  Engineering Officers' Association
BROADCASTING
  Reception, North Devon
  Reception, North Devon
  Corporation's Staff (Trade Unions)
  Corporation's Staff (Trade Unions)
  "Soviet View" Programme
  "Soviet View" Programme
  Members of Parliament (Broadcasts)
  Members of Parliament (Broadcasts)
  TELEVISION (MOTOR CAR SUPPRESSORS)
  TELEVISION (MOTOR CAR SUPPRESSORS)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Cemetery, Heligoland (Damage)
  Cemetery, Heligoland (Damage)
  Junior Officers (Allowances)
  Junior Officers (Allowances)
  Cinema Corporation
  Cinema Corporation
  Mepal Aerodrome
  Mepal Aerodrome
  Egyptian Airmen (Training)
  Egyptian Airmen (Training)
  Displays (Programme)
  Displays (Programme)
  Pay and Allowances
  Pay and Allowances
CIVIL AVIATION
  Meteorological Broadcasts
  Meteorological Broadcasts
  Renfrew—Northolt Service
  Renfrew—Northolt Service
  Operation in Thunderstorms (Document)
  Operation in Thunderstorms (Document)
  LATVIA (BRITISH ASSETS)
  LATVIA (BRITISH ASSETS)
  GREECE (BRITISH MISSIONS)
  GREECE (BRITISH MISSIONS)
  BERLIN (INTER-ZONAL MOVEMENT)
  BERLIN (INTER-ZONAL MOVEMENT)
  SUDAN (ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION)
  SUDAN (ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION)
  MR. TRYGVE LIE (VISIT)
  MR. TRYGVE LIE (VISIT)
  U.S.S.R. and E. EUROPE (PRESS CORRESPONDENTS)
  U.S.S.R. and E. EUROPE (PRESS CORRESPONDENTS)
  DISABLED WAR PENSIONERS (MOTOR CARS)
  DISABLED WAR PENSIONERS (MOTOR CARS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Charity Commission's Schemes
  Charity Commission's Schemes
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  SMALLPDX (VACCINATION)
  SMALLPDX (VACCINATION)
  TERRITORIAL ARMY RESERVE (STRENGTH)
  TERRITORIAL ARMY RESERVE (STRENGTH)
SCOTLAND
  Nurses' Salaries
  Nurses' Salaries
  Bridge, Isle of Lewis
  Bridge, Isle of Lewis
  Housing (Private Building)
  Housing (Private Building)
  Agricultural Drainage (Grants)
  Agricultural Drainage (Grants)
  WATERLOO BRIDGE (RAILINGS)
  WATERLOO BRIDGE (RAILINGS)
  CATTLE (TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION)
  CATTLE (TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.36 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving the Motion of the Lord Teynham for the annulment of the Coal Industry Nationalisation (Superannuation) Regulations, 1950, precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day on Tuesday next.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, before I put this Motion, I should like to extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Teynham. It was entirely to meet my convenience that the noble Lord granted the concession for which I asked. As we have this matter of the police to debate to-day, I was anxious not to have the other Motion also on the Order Paper for to-day. The noble Lord kindly acquiesced.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

USE OF HOTEL BUILDING
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Transport Executives intend to free the Great Central Hotel, Marylebone, in time to house visitors to the Festival of Britain.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, the former Great Central Hotel,
82
Marylebone, has been completely converted for use as offices and can no longer be used as an hotel. Therefore, even if these premises were to be vacated by the Railway Executive, the Road Haulage Executive and the Hotels Executive, they could not serve the purpose which the noble Lord advocates.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, will the Minister impress on the Transport Commission the importance of reducing the numbers of people engaged in administrative duties at these Transport headquarters to as near as possible the level prevailing before nationalisation?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is a consideration which is always before the Transport Commission.

STRENGTH OF POLICE FORCES
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD VISCOUNT TRENCHARD rose to move to resolve, That this House regrets that, notwithstanding the recommendations in the Oaksey Report, more urgent action has not been taken by the Government in order to bring the Police Forces of the country up to an effective strength. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name, I should like first to say a word about the previous debates on crime which we have had recently in this House. In my opinion, bringing the Police Forces up to strength is by far the most important and essential step towards reducing crime of the kind that is so prevalent to-day. Most of my remarks will be upon that theme. The Oaksey Committee were appointed in May, 1948 Their terms of reference were:
"To consider in the light of the need for the recruitment and retention of an adequate number of suitable men and women for the Police Forces of England, Wales and Scotland, and to report on various points,"
which I will not repeat, Those were the terms of reference. I intend to-day to confine my remarks to two points—promotion and housing,
The promotion question is referred to fully in paragraphs 207 to 231, and housing in paragraphs 270 to 302, of Part II of the Oaksey Report Before I refer to these two points, however, there are a few general observations I should like to make, The Oaksey Report at different

83
times refers to the Police Post-War Committee. That Committee was set up in May, 1944, to review certain matters affecting the post-war organisation of the Police Service and to consider the question of higher training of the leaders of the organisation and training courses for higher ranks. The first report of that Committee of 1944 was published in March, 1947. The second report of that same committee was signed in November, 1946, and not published until 1949. The third report was signed in December, 1946, and was not published until 1949. The fourth report was signed in May, 1947, and was not published until 1949.
I do not know whether that Post-War Committee is still in existence. The fourth and last report does not say whether the Committee has finished its work. In the four reports issued, the Committee deals very fully with many of the questions dealt with by the Oaksey Report—such as higher training and housing, the two points with which I intend to deal to-day. I have mentioned this fact only to show the difficulties of assessing all the recommendations which have been made in the various reports during the last three or four years. The Oaksey Committee were appointed, as I have said, in 1948, before the publication of the last three of these reports.
There is another general remark that I have to make. We are told that a large number of applicants who come up for entry into the Police Forces are rejected on educational, character or physical grounds. This fact is borne out by the Oaksey Committee, who say, speaking of candidates accepted:
"We understand that in some forces the proportion may be less than 5 per cent. and is seldom higher than 10 per cent."
of those who apply. The Police Forces are evidently not attracting enough of the right type of man. Why? The Government in this House were warned in 1948, and the Oaksey Report is a result of that warning. In this connection I pointed out in February, 1948, that one of the reasons why bright young men would not join was that they saw no chance of getting out of the rut early in their careers. I gave as an example of the authorities' public attitude towards higher training what was said in the First Report of that 1944 Committee—namely, that
84
"It might be felt in some quarters that undue weight was being given to what might be described as 'disputable' personal qualities—such as intelligence, character and personality—or to academic attainments, as against proved police ability and achievements."
Your Lordships will remember that I stressed the word "disputable." I think at the time the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack thought that I was a little unfair. I did not intend to be unfair at all, and evidently the right type of young men rather agreed with me, because they did not join after that Report was issued. With that remark in it I cannot see why they should.
Now I come to the Oaksey Report on that point. Paragraph 197 of Part II of the Oaksey Report—an independent Report—says:
"We think it should be borne in mind that character and intelligence are of more importance than education in at least the lower ranks of the police service, and candidates who are otherwise suitable should not be excluded by too rigorous insistence upon educational qualifications."
I agree with the Oaksey Report on that point, and I say that if a young man has character, intelligence and personality, and knows he has it, the rest will come—if he is given proper training. But is he given proper training? The Oaksey Report in the same paragraph says:
"On the other hand, everything should be done to attract the better-educated men and women who will be required if the higher posts in the police are to be filled satisfactorily from within the service."
I could not agree more. That was the whole essence of the reforms in my day, and of my speech two years ago. In the debate on Lord Lloyd's Motion the other day, two years after the Oaksey Inquiry, we were told that the figures of recruitment are very little better, at least in the Metropolitan Police Force; and violent crime has increased. Even a week ago, on April 27, according to Press reports the chief constable at a meeting of the West Riding Standing Joint Committee, said:
"I am trying to preserve the peace and see old people are not frightened of putting their heads out of doors at night for fear of being hit on the head, and that little girls are not molested."
He was supporting his plea for extra police. That was last week. We are still not getting enought recruits. The figures given in the debate last month show a gain of only 171 in the Metropolitan Police

85
Force in six months. This was the figure up to February of this year. We have gone forward another two months since then. I do not know whether the proportion of acceptances has been greater since the beginning of March; I hope so. But we have a long way to go.
It may be within your Lordships' recollection that the Oaksey Inquiry originated as a result of the debate in 1948. In that debate the Government first refused to set up an Inquiry; but the Home Secretary announced shortly afterwards that it would be set up and the Committee commenced their work on May 12, 1948. Part I of their Report dealt with Pay and Pensions, and was published in 1949. We had a debate on that subject. The second Part was completed in November, 1949, and was published at the end of December, just before your Lordships rose for the Winter Recess and for the Election. This is the first time it has been debated and, therefore, there have been four months in which to read and thoroughly appreciate Part II of the Report. In it I find many extraordinarily interesting, wise and sound remarks on the question of the two points with which I am going to deal—namely, promotion and housing. I must, I fear, quote some short extracts from the Report to show how it supports the views which have been expressed from time to time in your Lordships' House. I ask the noble and learned Viscount who is to reply for the Government what steps have been taken to implement these recommendations which were signed last December.
In the debate in June, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor referred to my ideas on higher training as my "King Charles's head"—in other words, I think he implied that I had rather a one-track mind. My Lords, I admit it: I have a one-track mind. I would rather go down the main track, instead of wandering down all the side paths into the jungle in order to avoid the difficulties straight ahead. I think the words "The Right Road for Britain" should be nailed on the door of every house in ibis country. In the same debate the noble and learned Viscount took me to task for criticising the Police College near Coventry without having seen it. He invited me to visit it and the Home Secretary kindly gave me the necessary permission. I was much interested in the
86
Police College. The amenities are nothing like good enough, but I realise they were the best that could be provided at the time. But I was mush struck with the staff and the spirit there. It is not for me to talk about them publicly, other than to say that I found them enthusiastic. They are doing good. The students were keen to learn, and very appreciative of the help they were getting. The College is doing good work. But one of the first things I noticed was that cut of a very small staff no fewer than four or five were ex-cadets from the Police College at Hendon. I could not help feeling that these men, who were chosen by the police authorities with the sanction of the Home Office, were specially picked; and it seemed to me that, with the rest of the staff, they were doing very good work but with too old material. I think I am right in saying that the men I am referring to were younger than the majority of the students.
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking everyone at the Police College for their kindness in showing me round and telling me all about it, especially the commandant, who is a really "live wire." But—certainly when the Oaksey Report was published—I think the average age of students was in the neighbourhood of thirty-eight or forty. I would ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to say how many students taking the present course at the Police College are above the age of thirty-five and how many are below the age of twenty-eight. I have sent in a note about these matters, and I think the Lord Chancellor is aware of my intention to raise them. In my opinion the younger men would benefit much more if they could be at the College for at least a year—if not eighteen months. Six months is too short. This is only a promotion course, and it will not produce the results which the Government and the Oaksey Committee are trying to get, although undoubtedly it does good. I do not believe, however, that it will have the effect of attracting one recruit. This, in my judgment, is not using the College or the staff to the best advantage.
I agree with what is said in the Oaksey Report on several other points. I agree when it is said that promotion should never be merely a reward for long and faithful service. The Report also states

87
something that I and other noble Lords have stressed in your Lordships' House many times. This is what paragraph 219 of the Report says:
"We think it is essential that most promotions to the rank of sergeant should be made with a view to filling the higher posts later, and that a reasonable proportion of those constables who are promoted should begin their progress toward the top at an early stage. Unless this is done, the ablest men, who might expect fairly rapid advancement in any other occupation, will be deterred from joining the police. Moreover, the qualities required of senior officers must, in our view, be developed at a reasonably early age. Other things being equal, the policeman will make a better inspector, superintendent or chief constable, if he reaches those ranks young enough to adapt himself to the new qualities of leadership that are required at each stage."
That is not my statement; it is the statement of the Oaksey Committee. It is of course, made quite independently of the police. But again I ask: Is the course of six months long enough for this end to be achieved?
One of the main points is to get the students young enough, and in paragraph 219 of their Report, the Oaksey Committee say:
"The average age of the students now at the junior course at the Police College, the pick of the police forces of the country, is over thirty-eight."
The Committee go on to say that even under the existing provisions of the Police regulations the position could be improved, but they add:
"… in our opinion it is desirable to go a step farther and to amend the regulations so as to make it possible for the outstanding constable to be promoted at an earlier stage than at present."
In the same paragraph, the Committee recommend that the qualifying period should be reduced from five years to four years, and that nineteen should be the minimum age for entry. They also recommend that a constable should be able to take the promotion examination after three years' instead of four years' service. This would give a man a chance of being promoted sergeant between twenty-three and twenty-five years of age. That is a step forward. If that could be brought about it would help recruitment more than anything. It is now five months since that Part of the Oaksey Report was published. I ask the Government: Are they going to carry out these recommendations now, and will they say
88
whether there is any intention of lengthening the time that students are at the Police College from six months to a year or more?
I must now turn to housing. This was not mentioned in the terms of reference of the Oaksey Committee, but in their Report, they say:
"Our terms of reference did not specifically mention police housing, but it was obvious from the outset of our inquiry that we should have to deal with it. All our witnesses said the housing difficulties had been one of the chief obstacles to the recruitment and retention of men."
Part II of the Oaksey Report was signed in October, 1949, and in the five months since the Report was sent to the Home Secretary many improvements may already have been brought into effect. Again, I must refer to some of the remarks made by the Committee. On this subject of housing they first point out that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said in 1947—I said it only in 1948, and I was taken to task for doing so—that if houses were not provided all other plans, however admirable, would prove to have been built on insecure foundations. I feel that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor himself thought that housing was the most important need—indeed, I believe that he said so.
On page 114 of Part II of the Oaksey Report there are some excellent statistics on housing. I will not trouble your Lordships by reading them, but they are very helpful and important. These figures covered the period up to March 31, 1949. I will explain what they were. From the Report it seems that from the end of the war in 1945 until March, 1949, only 167 new dwellings had been completed, eighty-six were under construction by the police authorities, and thirty-three houses had been purchased. That is all that has been done in four years. Yet the number required for the Metropolitan Police Force on March 31, 1949, was still over 2,000. That does not seem to show very good progress.
The Oaksey Committee considered, and they repeat, that over that period more should have been done by the police authorities to provide houses. But as they say, the final responsibility is on the Home Secretary. It is no good

89
blaming the police authorities. The final responsibility rests on the Home Secretary and on the Government. May I ask how many more houses have been completed in the further year that has elapsed since March, 1949, and how many are under construction in the Metropolitan Police District by the police authorities?
Now, for the moment, I must turn to the housing authorities. In previous speeches I have pressed that legislation should be introduced to compel these authorities to allot a larger share of their new buildings to the police. The Oaksey Report says:
"It is dear that the numbers of tenancies given to the police in many areas where the needs of the Force are great are hopelessly inadequate."
That expression "hopelessly inadequate" is a very strong one. It might be considered an exaggeration if I used it, but it appears in the Report. The Report further says:
"In our view, these figures indicate a failure on the part of many housing authorities throughout the country, and of practically all housing authorities in London, to recognise the importance of making adequate provision for the police."
The Committee go on to express the view, if I understand the Report aright, that the minimum proportion housing authorities should allocate to the police in the London area is 7.4 per cent. of the houses which they have under construction for the whole of the population.
They also give the percentage of new houses built, under construction and required to provide homes for married policemen, in the counties, cities and boroughs in England and Wales, and in the counties and boroughs in Scotland. I think I am right in saying that the Metropolitan Police Force are more than twice as badly off for married quarters as any other police force in the country. The Report recommends that within as short a time as possible housing authorities should make tenancies available to police authorities for all married policemen for whom no homes are otherwise available. The Report goes on to say that this is an exceptional arrangement, and as the police authority builds more houses local housing authorities will get back some of the houses they have allocated to the police. I hope I am correct in interpreting their remarks in this
90
way. I think I am. The number of dwellings local authorities would be called upon to provide would be less if the police authority could build more houses. Again, what steps have the Government taken to ensure that local housing authorities allot more houses to the police? We have recommended this course two or three times.
Now with regard to quarters for single men, I am pleased to see that the Oaksey Report refers to the extensive programme of new building and reconstruction of section houses undertaken between 1933 and 1939, but they say that the outbreak of war prevented the completion of that work. I hope the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will note that. The Oaksey Committee recommend the reconstruction and adaptation of old and unsatisfactory premises. They say that unless this is done the recruitment of men to and their retention in the Metropolitan Police Force will be prejudiced. The Report adds:
"The only satisfactory way to deal with the problem is to resume as soon as possible the programme of new construction which was suspended in 1939."
The Committee reported in 1949. This means, apparently, that when the Report was signed the programme had not been re-started. Perhaps I have misunderstood the position, or there may be a misunderstanding by the Oaksey Committee. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will make the matter clear.
Of all the recommendations of the Oaksey Committee these are the only two that I want to elaborate. In my opinion, there is one other which would encourage men of the right type to join the police, but which I will not elaborate, and that is concerned with the question of pay. Other noble Lords are more competent to deal with this than I am; I have not the figures in my head, nor have I the means of getting them. I hope the authorities recognise that the rates of pay of a large number of police, especially in the Metropolitan Police Force, should be comparable with those of skilled workers. I hope the Government will be able to answer the questions I have put and to say whether the recommendations in the Oaksey Report which I have mentioned have been implemented and published for the benefit of the police and would-be recruits, or when they will be. In order to

91
shorten my remarks, I sent the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack a list of the questions I am asking to-day, and I will not repeat them. I hope the Government will to-day be able to answer these points and show that there is some improvement, even since the Oaksey Committee reported. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House regrets that, notwithstanding the recommendations in the Oaksey Report, more urgent action has not been taken by the Government in order to bring the Police Forces of the country up to an effective strength.—(Viscount Trenchard.)
3.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, apologised to the House for having what he called a single-track mind. Let me say to him, and I think I am expressing the view of every member of this House, how very glad we are that he has this one-track mind. He and I worked together a good deal in the past, and I can say that the great services that he has conferred upon the country, whether in the field of the Air Force or in the field of the Police, have been due to this singleness of purpose with which once again to-day he has approached the difficult questions of the Police Force. Let me also, as an old Home Secretary, say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Oaksey, for his detailed and valuable Report. I am only sorry that he could not have issued both parts of the Report at the same time. If he had dealt with the questions of housing, promotion, and so on, at the time he dealt with pay, I think the reception of the two Reports would have been a great deal better than it has been. It was not the fault of the noble Lord that he issued his Report in two separate parts. I understand that he was much pressed by the Home Secretary and the Home Office to do so. At the same time, I repeat what I ventured to say in one of our earlier debates: that from the point of view of recruiting it would have been much better if the likely recruit had seen the whole picture at one and the same time.
With those two or three words of introduction, let me pass directly to the questions the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has raised, and to certain others that I am going to add. In recent
92
Sessions we have devoted a great deal of time to valuable discussions of questions connected with crime. We had long discussions on the Criminal Justice Act and the interesting discussion the other day upon crimes of violence. I am glad that those discussions have taken place, for they confirm what has always been in my own mind: that in the war against crime we have to advance over the whole front; we cannot isolate one part of it. We have first of all the point of criminal law. It must be a wise law, in general harmony with the public opinion of the day. We have the point of penal methods. There must be a wise prison administration, and there must be alternative forms of punishment, such as those we discussed during the debates on the Criminal Justice Act. Let me say, in passing, that I very much hope that we shall see a greater effort than has hitherto been the case to bring into operation the alternative punishments of detention sentences and of new kinds of remand homes without which the Criminal Justice Act will really prove to be ineffective. Thirdly, we have to advance upon the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has just been discussing—the field of the police. It is of interest here to remember that during the nineteenth century, when the great period of criminal and penal reform started, Sir Robert Peel, one of the best of all Home Secretaries, started at the police end. On that account I cannot stress too strongly the importance of the police side of the question in the prevention and detection of crime.
What is the present position? On the one hand, we are faced with a formidable increase of crime, as compared with prewar years. I am not now arguing on the figures quoted by the Lord Chancellor the other day, which went to show that in recent months crimes of violence have been slightly less frequent than last year and the year before. I am stating the broad fact that in the course of ten years, from 1939 to 1949, violent crime as a whole has increased and that violent crimes under the Larceny Act of 1916 have risen from 265 to 990 cases since 1939. That is the first fact that faces us. The second fact is the grave shortage of police. On the one hand there is the increase of crimes, and on the other, the decrease of the Police Forces.

93
Let me substantiate what I say about the police. Taking the country as a whole, the Police Forces are 20 per cent. below their establishments. Only two or three days ago the Home Secretary repeated the fact that the Metropolitan Police are 4,000 short on their present establishment of 20,000. But, as many people have stated, the situation is in fact worse. The establishment of the Metropolitan Police Force has not been raised since the war, as it certainly should have been. As I have already stated, I am informed that the real shortage in the Metropolitan Police Force, if the strength is to be as effective as it should be, is something more in the nature of 6,000.
Let me analyse these figures a little further. The Oaksey Report quotes these figures, and they are interesting, because they show that while in certain parts of the country the situation is almost as bad as it could be, in other districts it is fairly satisfactory, and in some even entirely satisfactory. Let me give the House one or two examples. In Shropshire there is a shortage of no less than 28.6 per cent. in the Police Forces; in Hampshire the shortage is 25 per cent.; in Coventry it is no less than 45 per cent.; in Oxford City it is 33 per cent.; and in the City of London, 26 per cent. On the other hand, the Police Forces of Staffordshire are up to establishment—in fact, I believe there is a waiting list—and the Police Force of Plymouth needs only one man to bring it up to its full establishment. That is a notable fact, if you compare Plymouth and Coventry. I compare those two cities for the reason that both, as we know, were subjected to devastating air-raids. Therefore, one would have thought that the shortage of police would be much the same in the two cities. There is the astounding fact that, while in Coventry there is a shortage of 45 per cent., in Plymouth the Force is practically up to establishment. Lastly, in Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, as distinct from London, our own capital, the Police Force is up to establishment, and no recruits are needed. I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that these great contrasts merit detailed examination. I have a feeling that it will be found that the disparity between counties and cities which one might have thought would be similar is due to the fact that in some areas the Police Forces have re-
94
ceived a care, sympathy and attention which they have not received in others.
Let me proceed from this part of my argument to the next. I come now to the question of recruiting for the police—or perhaps I should say of recruiting for the police and wastage from the police. The problem of recruiting, serious as it is, is, in my view, much less serious than the problem of wastage. In the period since the war in certain areas the recruiting has risen above pre-war standards. What has been serious has been the continual wastage that has persisted, particularly in the Metropolitan Police Force. Men have entered the Police Force and staved two, three, four or five years, and then left it. I remind the House of the figures the Lord Chancellor gave me the other day. I asked for the figures of recruiting and wastage in the Metropolitan Police since the Oaksey Report had been published. These figures show that during the six months from October, 1949, to the end of February this year (I am referring to Part I of the Oaksey Report), 707 recruits entered the Metropolitan Police Force, but no fewer than 536 left it. The result is that, even after the increased rates of pay and other advantages recommended by the Oaksey Committee in Part I of their Report, tie Metropolitan Police Force in the course of six months has increased its strength by only 171 constables. Noble Lords can calculate for themselves as to how long at that rate it will take the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to bring the strength up to the establishment.
I need not elaborate the conclusions to be drawn from these figures. I ask noble Lords to think of their effect on, first, the prevention of crime—perhaps the main duty of the police—and, secondly, the detection of crime. As to the prevention of crime, I have ventured to point out in this House time and time again the importance of a sufficiency of constables on the beats for the purpose of preventing juvenile crime and delinquency. Every administrator and expert with whom I am in contact confirms the view that it is essential, if we are to prevent children and young persons from drifting into serious crime, that there should be policemen walking up and down the beats as a perpetual warning to potential offenders.

95
As to the detection of crime, I received some figures from the Lord Chancellor the other day. I was interested in this problem of detection, for I well remember that about the time I was Home Secretary a Departmental Committee reported upon the detection of crime and the methods used. It was a very interesting Report. What has happened since, so far as I can judge from the figures which have been given to me, is that the percentage of detection of crimes of robbery and violence has fallen materially. I estimate that about 5 per cent. fewer of these serious crimes are now discovered, as compared with the years before the war. That is a serious fact if, as I believe it to be, my estimate is accurate—and for this reason. It will be found, speaking generally, that serious crimes are on the whole committed by a limited number of criminals. Someone whose opinion I value once told me that all the really dangerous criminals in the country could be confined, certainly in one prison, and possibly in one wing of a prison. That may be an exaggeration, but this fact cannot be questioned: that if this limited number of really dangerous criminals could be satisfactorily detected, we should see a very marked fall in the crimes of robbery and violence which have given the country so much anxiety in recent years.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Viscount forgive me? It is difficult to follow all these figures, but my impression was that the number of crimes cleared up at the present time compared favourably with the past. The noble Viscount says that that is not so. If he says so I am sure he is right, but probably he has some figures and perhaps he will give me a reference.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I will give the Lord Chancellor as the reference the answer that he gave me on April 18. If I may make a criticism, I admit that his answer is not very clear, but so far as I can judge from it—taking crimes of robbery and violence, in which I am interested—5 per cent. fewer of those crimes are being detected to-day as compared with two years before the war. I shall be glad if the Lord Chancellor can tell me that I have misunderstood the figures.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would not go so far as that, because one gets
96
into such a whirl of figures in these matters and I cannot remember them. My impression was that the result was the other way, but I cannot vouch for it.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Be that as it may, whether the Lord Chancellor is right or whether I am right, the fact remains that one of the most urgent problems in the war against crime is to get these dangerous criminals into prison, with long terms of imprisonment under the corrective training and preventive training clauses of the Criminal Justice Act. I will give the House one single instance to substantiate what I say. The Committee on the detection of crime to which I have been referring, analysed the cases of 102 serious criminals, and found that they had confessed to no fewer than 1,851 offences. Moreover, one or two of them, when they asked for other offences to be taken into account, admitted to having committed anything up to seventy really serious offences. Whether my actual figures are right or whether they are not, they reinforce my contention that it is essential to bring the Police Force up to its effective establishment.
Now I pass to the steps which ought to be taken. I shall try not to repeat what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has already said. I shall try to amplify it in certain respects, and possibly add one or two other reasons to those that he has given. I may say that I have taken the trouble in recent weeks to inquire, as well as I could, about the position both in London and the Provinces. I begin with the views that I have collected from the Provinces where, generally speaking, the problem of recruitment and wastage has not been so difficult as it has been in London. The first reason given for difficulty in recruitment is the fact that the police have to work a six-day week, including a considerable amount of night duty. This compares unfavourably with the ordinary industrial worker, with his five-day week and no night duty. Secondly, in pre-war days the attraction used to be a good pension at the end of thirty years' service, whereas nowadays the average man gets a State pension anyhow, so that the police pension has lost a lot of its attraction.
Thirdly, there is the slowness of promotion in the police. I am not now dealing with the details raised by the

97
noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, but with the more general question. This is a very difficult problem in a service where men have to do thirty years to qualify for a full pension. If a man is promoted early in his service he blocks the road to promotion for many years. The chief cause of the slowness of promotion at the moment—and I draw the attention of noble Lords to this point—is the fact that Part I of the Oaksey Committee's Report, which increased the rates of pay, came into force on July 1, 1949, and since then retirement pensions have had to be based on the man's average annual pay for the past three years. This means that all the senior ranks are staying on to complete three years at the new rates of pay, in order to retire on pensions based on those new rates. This is a great stumbling block, as it means that men who ought to retire and thereby give promotion to others, are sitting tight. Fourthly, under the National Health Service Act, the police have had a raw deal. Before this Act came into force every police officer was entitled to free medical and dental treatment. A man could choose his own doctor and get quick service. Now, each man has 4s. 11d. per week deducted from his pay as his contribution to the National Health Service, and owing to the congestion in the hospitals, and the fact that so many of the local doctors are over-worked, he cannot get anywhere near such good attention. This point is greatly resented by the men.
Those complaints show that, speaking generally, the man in the Police Force has lost his relative advantage over other corresponding employed persons in the country. It is a problem that affects all the security services. It is inevitable, perhaps, in view of the great improvement in so many industries in other walks of life, but it does raise for the Government—whether it be this or any other Government—a very formidable problem. I am convinced that if we wish to obtain and to maintain a full establishment in our security services—whether they be the Police, the Army, the Navy or the Air Force—we must face the expense and once again reestablish the relative advantage for them over other corresponding employments. That raises a very big question, and I do not propose to follow it to-day, or
98
to say anything more about these general conditions of employment; but I wish, before I sit down, to say a word about housing.
If noble Lords will read the Oaksey Report, and if they will supplement the Report with the reports of the Metropolitan Police, of the inspectors of constabulary and of the local Police Forces, they will find that bad housing is at the bottom of three out of four of the troubles in the police. Do noble Lords realise the present state of affairs? Let me take the Metropolitan Force as the case which best illustrates the gravity of this shortage of houses. My first figure is a general one—I will take the Metropolitan figures in a minute or two. The general figure is that at the present moment 20,000 married policemen are living in hired houses, 7,000 in hired lodgings, and 700 are separated from their families. In the Metropolitan Police Force the Oaksey Report criticises first the shortage of houses for married police and, secondly, the inadequacy of the section houses built for the single men. The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has just asked a question about the section houses; and I venture to amplify his question by asking first how far there is a programme for resuming the plans that were in operation between 1935 and 1939 for improving the section houses; and secondly, whether these improved section houses are going to come up to the standard of the improved barracks in the Army and in the Air Force. We recall the activities of the present Minister of Defence, when he was Secretary for War, in visiting barracks and in starting new programmes of barrack improvements. Is the same plan of barrack improvement going to apply to the police?
So much for the single quarters. I come now to the actual figures in the Metropolitan area. In the Metropolitan area there is a greater shortage of houses for the police than anywhere else in the country, and that fact comes out in the Oaksey Report. According to my figures, only 167 houses have been built by the police authority—that is to say, the Home Office and the Commissioners of Police—since the end of the war in 1945. Even more surprising, although everybody admits the gravity and the urgent need, the programme for this mere pittance of new houses was stopped altogether in 1947. I will quote in a moment what

99
the Oaksey Report says about the position; it is a very serious criticism of the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the Metropolitan Police and is also both the Commissioner of Police and the Receiver of Police—a fact which was mentioned in the criticisms made by the Oaksey Committee. This is what that Committee say in paragraph 282:
"We consider that during this period more should have been done to provide police houses for married men in London by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District, or, in the last resort, by the Home Secretary in pursuance of his responsibilities as police authority for the force."
So much for the building of houses in the Metropolitan area by the police authority. But, as Lord Trenchard has just pointed out, there is also the responsibility of the housing authorities—that is to say, the local authorities—for providing houses for letting to the police who are so necessary in their area. Let noble Lords notice this record. Here, in the Metropolitan Police area, local authorities have provided 468 out of 72,000 houses that have been built in the area since the war. Since the war—if one goes beyond the area of the Metropolitan Police—one finds that Coventry (where, as I observed just now, they were 45 per cent. short of their peace establishment) they have provided six out of 590 new houses. In Battersea one house has been provided out of 527 new houses; in Islington two have been provided out of 902, and in Poplar, none out of 755. Is it any wonder that the Oaksey Report says:
"… the numbers of tenancies given to the police in many areas where the needs of the force are great are hopelessly inadequate"?
I give another quotation.
"… failure on the part of practically all housing authorities in the Metropolitan area …"
I give a further quotation, this time from the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police himself, in his report for 1948—
"Lack of houses continued to be a major cause of our poor recruiting figures and of our losses, both of probationers and men with considerable service."
These are the things that matter in this urgent problem. These are the things that I cannot help saying have been left in a very unsatisfactory state, year after year.
100
Today the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has alluded to the reports of what was called the Police Committee. They started reporting about these police problems as long ago as 1906. Then came the debate that the noble Viscount himself raised in February, 1948, in which he demanded an inquiry. The Government replied that there was no reason to have an inquiry at that time. Next, there was the first Oaksey Report of more than a year ago and there was the subsequent Oaksey Report of last autumn. In spite of these continuous Reports, I have an uneasy feeling that very little is being done. To-day, therefore, I wish to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor whether he accents the recommendation of the Oaksey Committee that not less than 7 per cent. of the new houses built by local authorities should be allocated to police. I ask him, further, whether he will tell the House to-day which of the other important recommendations of the Oaksey Committee have been accepted by the Government, and what has actually happened, for instance, in the matter of recruitment and wastage since the figures that he gave me at the end of February.
We are dealing to-day with very serious questions, and, if we are satisfied that sufficient action is not being taken, I feel very strongly that the House should show its disapproval in the Division Lobby. We want to be convinced that the Home Secretary and the Government are actively engaged in meeting this serious problem. If they can convince us to-day, we shall all be the better pleased. In conclusion, let me quote to the House an extract that was given me when, as Home Secretary, I was studying police questions. It is an extract from an instruction that was sent by Sir Robert Peel (then Home Secretary) to the newly formed Metropolitan Police. I quote it for the purpose of showing the minute and sympathetic interest that the Home Secretary was then showing in police questions. I feel that that is essential if the shortages and the unsatisfactory features that I have mentioned are to be removed. On January 1, 1830, this order was sent from the Home Secretary to the Metropolitan Police:
"The Commissioners of Police, feeling anxious to provide all the comforts for the police force that can be given consistently with the duties to be performed, are glad to

101
have to communicate to the constables that Mr. Secretary Peel has allowed another blanket to be issued."
That is the kind of spirit in which these difficult questions should be faced. That is the kind of sympathetic support that we ask from the Home Secretary and from His Majesty's Government.
3.45 p.m.
LORD BADELEY: My Lords, after the two speeches to which the House has just listened from acknowledged experts on the subject, it may seem rather presumptuous for a mere layman to intervene. I do so only as a man in the street who has a strong and vivid interest in the Force as a whole. It is going to be a little difficult to steer a course between the speeches of the noble Viscounts, Lord Templewood and Lord Trenchard, who have so thoroughly covered the ground, and if I am guilty of a certain amount of reiteration I hope the House will forgive me.
We have had a number of debates in this House on crime and on the reform of criminals. The Motion before the House to-day is concerned only indirectly, though very vitally, with the prevention of crime, so I do not propose to touch upon that aspect, except incidentally to refer to a broadcast which some of your Lordships may have heard, wherein a certain Lord Justice painted a moving picture of a very hardened criminal who was completely reformed by having the companionship of a budgerigar in his cell. I am all for reform of any kind, sort or description; but the irreverent thought crossed my mind as to what would be the after-effects upon a talkative, imitative parrot if it had to share a cell with a foul-tongued wife-beater for six months.
I suppose it must be unquestioned that there is going over the country a wave of crime such as has not been experienced for a great number of years. For evidence of this we have only to look at the figures that have been given showing the overcrowding of the cells and prisons of this country. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that, apart from a revival of an appreciation of the standards of morals, which would effect a diminution in crime, the first line of defence must be the police. It does not need much imagination, as has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, to realise that, if a man is about to commit a burglary or a crime of some kind
102
and goes to the scene where he is going to commit that crime and sees a policeman thereabouts, he is more than likely to make off as quickly as he can, and, at least, leave the job till later. It is tot merely juvenile delinquency that the policeman prevents; his very appearance prevents the man who is about to commit a burglary. However, nowadays, one knows well, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, pointed out in a previous speech on this subject, that one may go a quarter of a mile from one's house and not see a policeman. The reason is not far to seek. The policemen are not there to find: there are not enough men to do full patrol duty. We are told that that duty is done by the quite admirable police patrol cars, but the answer to that is that, by the time "999" has been dialled and contact made with a police car, the wretched victim has probably been gagged and very possibly left unconscious. We badly need more policemen for these ordinary police duties, as we used to have them in the past. The problem is how to get men into the Force. The Oaksey Report has unfortunately not resulted in the increase for which we hoped.
Here I must go for a moment into some figures. It will mean a little duplication, though not to any great extent. The figures are those given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in March last. They have been quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. The result, of course is that there has been an increase of 172 men in six months. That is not good enough and cannot be good enough. We have to find some other way of collecting men. I am told that a recent drive which has been made to recruit men has resulted in a fairly large correspondence from men asking for forms upon which to make their applications for enlistment. One only hopes that the right standard of men will be forthcoming there. I fancy that the percentage of men who will be acceptable from among those applicants will be very small. I came across one report from a chief constable of a county which shall be nameless for the moment. I am carrying the figures in my head, but my impression is that his report was that out of 130 applicants he found that 28 were possible recruits, and of the others that were discarded two were so ignorant that when it came to the examination they did not know even the

103
name of the present Prime Minister. That is hardly the standard of education wanted for the Police Force.
There was an interesting summary in the Police Review of last week of reports from chief constables in various counties. It is interesting to see how the numbers differ. I am not going to bother the House with a lot of figures, but here are one or two. Birmingham is about 500 men short, but Plymouth, which has been referred to by Lord Templewood, is only one under strength. That may be so. Devon as a county, however, needs double the number of recruits in order to bring its Police Force up to established strength. In Edinburgh there have been sixty-four resignations and twenty-three recruitings, and in Derbyshire there has been a drop of thirty recruits. So it goes on. There are many more details one could give. From all quarters comes the same tale of disappointment. I say this to show how desperate the situation is and how eminently necessary it is that some serious steps are taken.
The question is, what steps can be taken? Here I come straight to the question of pay. One starts with the premise that the men we want in the Force are particularly young, well-educated men, of good standard. The first question that a young man asks when he comes to enlist on a life career is, "What is the 'screw'?" On this occasion, he is going to be told that he will be paid £330 per annum, which is the new figure under the Oaksey Report. Out of that he is going to have 4s. 11d. per week deducted for his National Insurance—a service which he received for nothing before the National Health Act—he is going to have deducted a contribution towards his pension; he is going to have to clothe himself in civilian clothes for his off-duty periods, and to feed himself. That is going to leave precious little for him when the pay packet comes in each week.
I go full force on this, because I feel quite sure that we shall not get the right men into the Force unless they are guaranteed that by the time they have passed their examinations and qualified for work on the street, they will be entitled to a wage equivalent to that of the skilled worker: and they are certainly worth it. A policeman has not only to parade the streets; he has to be responsible for the
104
prevention of crime at risk to limb, and very often to life; he has to help in accidents and render first aid; he has to be the general friend and consultant of innumerable people who come and ask him question after question. I wonder if any of your Lordships have ever stood by a policeman, as I have, while he is on the street, and heard the perfectly fatuous and idiotic questions that elderly, middle-aged, and young women ask? You would be perfectly amazed. I am always astonished at the patience they display, not merely on the street but also in the charge-room in the police station. Then they have to be physically fit. Can any of your Lordships imagine yourselves doing night duty from 11 p.m. until 7 a.m. for a month at a stretch? I confess I should not like to undertake it myself. They have to be on their feet most of the day. For your Police Force, you must have a man who combines physical attributes with sympathetic manner, a type you need not look for in any other profession. You have to get the right type of man, and in the old days we were certainly able to do that.
The question of housing, has been so well dealt with that I do not propose to say more about it, other than that it is certainly one of the real difficulties with which we have to contend. Lord Templewood has dealt with the point so fully that I will do no more than add that, though some of the section houses in London are excellent (as, indeed, was pointed out in the Oaksey Report), some are deplorably bad. I personally should have been very glad to see some of the money that is being spent on the Fun Fair for the 1951 Exhibition spent on needs much more urgent at home. Then I come to my last point—namely, promotion. From personal experience, I know that many younger men feel a sense of frustration in regard to this matter. A certain number of them feel that they are embarking upon a career in which they will not be able to reach a point where the qualities or faculties that they feel they can exercise will still be at their best. Promotion is going to be slow, and they look for a career in which the opening will be quicker than it is at present. Remedies have been suggested for that, and I would put in a plea that where the younger man has shown himself capable and has passed all the necessary examinations, he should not necessarily be stymied

105
by the elder men who have passed their examinations and are likely to get promotion as a matter of course through length of service, but, as indeed happens in the Civil Service, should have a chance over their heads.
One comes then to a point that has been alluded to—namely, the question of the three years' average. As your Lordships know, under the Oaksey Report that is a question of a certain number of men staying on when their time of service is near its end, in order that they may get the advantage of the full pay and pension for those three years. This is the rule in the Civil Service, and is quite a usual thing. But the result in the Police Force is bad stagnation. If we stop these men going out, we shall stop the outflow from the top, which in turn will stop the men coming up from the bottom. For the life of me, I cannot see why the Government or the Home Office should not go so far as to say, "Let these men do their full thirty years' service, and let them retire on a pension based on what they are getting at the last week of their service." It is said that it will take three years for the stagnation to work itself out; but, after all, the service life of a policeman is thirty years, and three years is one-tenth of that service time. It is not a very cheerful prospect for a man if his promotion is going to be blocked by this. It seems a simple solution. It may mean a certain amount of expense, but I think the result would be worth it. That brings me to the end of my remarks. I must ask your Lordships to forgive me for having gone into details that have already been given, but I feel that unless something is done, and done quickly, we shall not get the type of man who has always distinguished the Police Force, which, after all, was the pride of this country and the model for other Police Forces of Europe.
3.58 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made as his first point to-night that the present crime wave is due to the shortage of police, and I am sure that he is right. Both he and Lord Templewood have dealt fully with the reasons for the present shortage, and I am not going to venture to go over that ground again. I should like to refer to one remark made by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood—
106
that he was surprised that the Police Force for Plymouth was only one man under strength. I see present two noble Lords who have served in the Royal Navy, and I am sure that they know the answer to that question. They will agree, I think, that many petty officers join the police after their release from the Royal Navy, and I am sure that that one vacancy will be filled when another petty officer retires.
The point that I wish to make to-day is that of the waste of man-power in the police, particularly in one connection—namely, traffic duty. In my opinion far too many police officers are being used for traffic duty, often in places where the work could be done as well, or better, by traffic lights. My noble friend Lord Badeley, with his intimate knowledge of the police, has spoken of the irksomeness of some of their duties. I am sure that one of the most irksome duties is that of controlling traffic. To a man on traffic duty, the thought that what he is doing could be done better by traffic lights must be extremely galling. I can think of many points within a mile or so of this House where traffic lights could be installed with advantage. The outstanding spot, to my mind, is near Trafalgar Square, at the corner of St. Martin's Lane and King William IV Street. It is a perfectly straightforward crossing; there are no complications. There are several straightforward crossings also in Bond Street—at least throe or four—where traffic lights could be installed.
I calculate that, with reliefs, each traffic crossing uses the services of two and a half policemen, and I am sure that a great saving in man-power could be effected if this matter were gone into carefully. I have never been able to understand why police constables sit in little boxes in three spots in the heart of London, controlling traffic lights by hand. No doubt most noble Lords well knew where I mean. One of them is at the top of the Strand, and there is a second one at the City end of Fleet Street. The third such place is on the Thames Embankment near the Savoy. Policemen sit in boxes at those points controlling traffic lights by hand, and, incidentally, there is no cautionary light. I am sure that automatic lights could well be used at those places.

107
I have reason to believe that finance comes into this matter of installing traffic lights. From 20 to 40 per cent. of the installation costs, I gather, have to be paid by the local authority. Then maintenance and current required by the lights when in operation are both a charge on the local authority. Therefore there is a great deal of opposition from these bodies to be overcome before they will agree to installation of new traffic lights. I am sure that, taking the country's finances as a whole, the cost of a set of traffic lights would work out at much less than that of the time of two and a half constables. Another reason, I believe, why there is resistance to the installation of traffic lights, is that expressed by spokesmen of local authorities who often ask: "What saving will there be on the police?" Of course, at the moment there would not be any saving, because the installation of traffic lights would mean merely that the police who were released would be used for other duties. But where traffic lights are set up surely there might be equivalent adjustment of the establishment of the police. I would suggest that the Home Office should pursue this point with energy. They should appoint local committees to go into the question thoroughly and find out where saving of police man-power could best be effected by these means. By my calculations, if one hundred new sets of traffic lights were installed in the Metropolitan area—and that is not a very large number—there would be a saving of 250 police. That is a larger figure than the total net increase for the past twelve months which has been quoted to-day—namely, 172.
One other possible means of saving police man-power—I know that this is a very controversial point, and it has been raised before—would be by delegating traffic duty, and certain duties such as the noting of parking offences and so forth, to a body of men—call them "traffic controllers" if you like—who are less highly skilled and trained than police officers. I know that objections have been voiced here, but such a scheme has been successfully adopted in the city of Sydney. There, it is the practice to recruit a number of partially disabled ex-Service men, and they relieve the police of the sort of duties to which I have
108
referred. I will not detain your Lordships any longer, but I feel that in the field which I have indicated there could be a great saving in police man-power. This is a very urgent question, and I suggest that no possible avenue should be left unexplored.
4.7 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor replies, I wish to say a few words on the position of police housing in Scotland. As my noble friend Lord Templewood has pointed out, the housing of police in the country generally has a very important bearing on the problem of bringing the Force up to strength. Your Lordships will remember that the Oaksey Committee state in their Report that they found the position with regard to housing less favourable in Scotland, and proposals to meet it, in their view, were not wholly adequate. The relevant sentence in the Report reads:
"The programme for future police authority building in Scotland seems to us inadequate to meet the requirements of the situation and we hope it will be possible in future to allow police authorities to build on a more generous scale."
Those words are to be found in paragraph 289 of Part II of the Report.
As Lord Templewood has said, it is true that in certain boroughs in Scotland recruiting has caught up to establishment, as in the case of Edinburgh. But the position generally in the burghs and in the counties is that there are still shortages to make up. I know, from my own experience, that the housing problem is one which bulks very largely in the mind of the intending recruit. The position in March of last year was that police authorities in Scotland had under construction or in a position to start 111 houses in counties, and 42 in burghs. The Scottish Home Department were able to approve the acceptance of tenders at the rate of between 75 and 100 a year. It is that provision which the Committee characterises as "inadequate." I hope very much that, in his reply, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will assure us that all possible importance is being attached to this consideration and that housing in Scotland will be pressed on.
4.9 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it was. I think, in June last that we had our last debate on this topic. We have had such debates at not very lengthy intervals for a good time past. I do not at all complain that we should have these debates. I regard the matter which we are discussing to-day as one of very great importance. It seems to me it is a platitude to say that if we brought our Police Forces completely up to strength we should be taking the most effective step that could be taken against crime. Therefore, it is a matter which concerns us all here, and all good citizens, to see what we can do to get our Police Forces up to strength. On the other hand, I am bound to say that I rather object that on the occasion of these not infrequent debates I should always be cast for the rôle of the unfortunate toad under the harrow, because, looking at this matter quite frankly, I would point out that this is a problem which we have inherited. Indeed it is, if you attach great importance to the housing problem, as the noble Viscount and I do. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Badeley, attached more importance to the question of pay, but the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, attached at least as much importance to the question of housing as to that of pay. Housing is a problem we have inherited. It is the damnosa hæreditas we have taken on.
I will show in due course the figures of what we have done and I think on the whole it is not bad. But when I see the terms of this Motion—
"That this House regrets that, notwithstanding the recommendations in the Oaksey Report, more urgent action has not been taken by the Government in order to bring the Police Forces in the country up to, an effective strength"—
I say that a Motion in that phraseology is one I certainly will not accept. But I will give your Lordships a review of the entire circumstances and I will set down with complete candour what the position is. I will tell the House how we are getting on and endeavour in the course of my remarks to answer all the questions which the noble Viscount has asked me. If, by error, I omit answering one of them, and if he will be good enough to remind me of it, I will do my best to answer.
110
The true picture is by no means a picture of unrelieved gloom. Like the curate's egg, it is good in parts, but there are very black spots. One of the blackest is the Metropolitan Police, but I think a fair picture as a whole is that we are slowly surmounting and overcoming our difficulties. We are finding how extraordinarily difficult it is to get recruits into this or any other Service at a time of full employment. That is only common sense and all your Lordships will agree with that. The prospect of adequate recruitment and bringing the Services up to strength depends in the main on three things—first of all, the adequacy of remuneration; secondly, the adequacy of housing accommodation; and thirdly, general questions which affect morale apart from those two. Under those three categories we can probably discuss the whole question. Let us see what steps the Government have taken to deal with these matters. In the debate we had on this subject just before May, 1948, your Lordships pressed me to appoint an independent Committee to look into the whole question. Other pressure was brought to bear at the same time and, as a result (I think here I have got my date right), in May, 1948, the Oaksey Comittee was appointed.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Would the noble Viscount go back a little further, to February, 1948, when, so far as I remember, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, proposed a Committee and the noble and learned Viscount himself turned it down?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, because it was not the right time for it. It was a question of timing. The existing arrangement was to last until the end of 1949, and I said the Committee should be appointed in time to make the recommendations as from January 1, 1950; but no doubt owing to the arguments which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, used at that time, and other supporting arguments, the Home Secretary decided that he would appoint a Committee at an even earlier date, and I think I am right in saying that the Oaksey Committee was appointed in May, 1948. It was an independent and powerful Committee. I showed my appreciation of the importance of the subject matter by readily consenting that my noble friend Lord Oaksey

111
should be asked to preside over the Committee, and all who know him realise that we could not have had a better and more effective Chairman. He published his Interim Report on April 6, 1949. It is true that he was asked by the Home Secretary to publish an Interim Report, but he was asked by the Home Secretary because the police themselves were most anxious that that Interim Report should be published—and for a very simple reason. They did not want to wait a long time before obtaining the increases in pay to which they thought they were entitled. It has always seemed to me a little odd that criticism should be made of that fact. I remember that criticism was made on a previous occasion, and we had an echo of it today, when we were asked why we published that Report in two pieces. Why not do what was done in the spacious days of Lord Desborough and have it all in one? Incidentally, Lord Desborough made his Report in two parts, but I will pass that. We did it because the police asked for it.
The Report was published on April 6, 1949, and the Government published an explanatory White Paper in May. We adopted all the recommendations in their entirety and they came into force as from July 1, 1949. So there was certainly no time wasted there. It has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and I think by the noble Lord, Lord Badeley, that we ought to consider circumstances such as the repercussions of the Health Service, and that the police used before to get some privileges as compared with the rest of the people which they do not get to-day. That was one of the very matters which the Oaksey Committee considered. In paragraph 22, on page 10 of Part I of the Report, they set out the case which was put before them for higher wages, and say:
"(c) that certain solid advantages over other occupations which the police had in the period between the two World Wars—security of tenure, holidays with full pay, free medical and dental treatment and general pension scheme—have disappeared now there is full employment and the whole community is under the wing of National Insurance;"
That was one of the matters considered, and it was in the light of those questions that the Oaksey Committee came to their unanimous conclusions. Your Lordships
112
asked for this Committee and we appointed a Committee; we provided a first-class Chairman; they presented a unanimous Report, and within three months of the Committee's Report we accepted the recommendations in full. The Committee have considered all these matters; and now are your Lordships asking us to turn round and throw those recommendations overboard by saying they are not enough and we must increase them? I do not say that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asked any such thing, but, if I understand them aright, the noble Lord, Lord Badeley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, did.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: We must judge by results, and I think that the results of recruiting have shown that the advantages recommended for the police by the Oaksey Report are not sufficient for the purpose of getting enough men.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the course of my speech I will consider what the results are. At the present time it is far too early to say what are the results of the Oaksey Report and the recommendations which we accepted. Let me assure the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that I am not making this part of my speech with any reference to him at all. He said nothing of the sort, and I do not suggest that he did.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: May I intervene for a moment? I have not heard anybody suggest that the Oaksey Report should be overthrown. I have heard only support for most of its recommendations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount presumably heard the speeches of Lord Templewood and Lord Badeley. Unless I misunderstand those two noble Lords, they both say that the recommendations of the Oaksey Report in regard to pay are insufficient. They support that conclusion by various arguments, including the argument that, whereas in the old days the police used to have this differentiation over the rest of the public, to-day they do not have it, because everyone receives a pension under the National Insurance Act. We also had an observation by another noble Lord indicating that the policeman's life never has been a happy lot, and that he has to spend all night long parading the streets. If those observations have the

113
meaning which I am sure was intended, they must mean that the recommendations of the Oaksey Report are inadequate—indeed, Lord Templewood confirms that he does say that; and he says it in the light of subsequent experience that the Force have not succeeded in getting the necessary recruits. All I say at the moment is that, having accepted these recommendations in Part I of the Oaksey Report, which were given in the light of all the relevant circumstances, I am not prepared to say, on the figures which I will submit to your Lordships in due course, that they have been revealed as being in any way inadequate or erroneous.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount one question. I did refer to all these inquiries. Is the Committee on the Police Services in England and Wales still sitting?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I rather think it is no longer sitting, but I will find out. The recommendations of the Oaksey Committee will cost £4,000,000 in a full year, and we have accepted them. Therefore, they substantially improve the position.
I now come to Part II of the Report, in which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, was particularly interested. That was dated October 31, 1949, and covered a large number of conclusions—summarised, they come to no fewer than fifty-five conclusions—some of which would require legislation. I am not going to attempt in this speech to go through them all, but I shall mention some of the more important conclusions, including those about which I have been asked. They deal with a number of diverse matters. One is the standards to be insisted upon. So far as the standards of intelligence and that sort of thing are concerned, the Committee recommended no alteration. I should be sorry to try to meet our great difficulty to solve this intractable problem by reducing the standard of intelligence, and I have not been asked to do so. So far as height is concerned, the Committee indicated that there was no reason why men of 5ft. 8in. should not be accepted. That has been done in London and Birmingham, and I think it should be done in other Police Forces.
114
With regard to methods of promotion and prospects of promotion the Committee pointed out on page 95 that the suggestion that prospects of promotion were bad was not the fact. They state:
"A statistical enquiry into prospects of promotion … shows that, for men who make the Service a career, there are no grounds for the assertion that the prospects of promotion in the police are poor."
They set out the facts. At the present time a constable has to serve five years; he can sit for his examination for the rank of sergeant in the fourth year; and then as sergeant he has to serve two years before he can become inspector. So that, even assuming that he passes all the examinations, he will have to serve five years plus two before he can become inspector. The Committee suggested that instead of serving for five years tine constable should in future be required to serve for only four years; and it would be a corollary of that that the examination he could take would be at the end of three years instead of, as at present, at the end of four years. The Committee then dealt with the Police College, which they noted with approval—and your Lordships may like to know that there is a proposal to start a similar Police College in Scotland. They said that the average age of admission to the first junior courses was too high. In that they were plainly right.
Let me say this general word about all these recommendations. I would much rather get these recommendations carried by agreement than have them imposed. I believe the whole history of the last few years—I think Lord Trenchard will agree with me here—shows that it is better in these matters, where you are dealing with a civilian Force and want to get their confidence and carry them along with you, to put these matters to them and try to get them to agree, even at the cost of some delay. That is what we have done. We have circulated these proposals to the two associations representing the local police authorities, to the Chief Constables' Association, to the Superintendents' Central Committee, and last, but by no means least, to the Police Federation. We have done the same thing in Scotland. We had discussions on January 26, and since then the matter has been broken up, as it were, into working parties. The associations have not yet committed

115
themselves to final views, and the Government have no intention of being rushed. We want to see whether we can do this by consent. I do not want to commit myself as to what we may have to do if we cannot get consent, beyond saying—and this is as far as I can answer Lord Trenchard on this point—that it seems to me that the recommendation which Lord Oaksey makes about the reduction of the five years to four, and the consequent reduction of the four years to three for the examination, is a recommendation on the right lines.
It will be observed that Lord Oaksey's Committee also did this in their recommendations. Being anxious to ensure that these people who are going in for promotion do not escape and dodge the routine and rather dull part of the duty of a policeman, they said that every policeman must serve two years on ordinary police duties, and every sergeant one year of his time as sergeant on ordinary police duties, whereas at the present time the requirement is only one year. Those two recommendations taken together strike one as being particularly forcible, but deliberately I do not say more than that because, as I have said, I would much rather get these alterations by consent.
I now come to recruitment and manpower. I say here that although the situation is by no means as I should like it to be, it does not present a picture of unrelieved gloom. Your Lordships will remember that the police were "frozen"—to use the vernacular—during the war. After the early stages there was no recruitment to the regular Force, and in consequence when the end of the war came the wastage was abnormally heavy—as one would expect. It was not until January 1, 1946, that post-war recruitment began, the regular strength then being 47,600. I am dealing now with the Police Force of England and Wales as a whole, and I will deal with Scotland presently. On April 1, 1950, four years later, the strength was 59,661, an increase of well over 12,000 in those four years. For the county and borough forces in England and Wales, omitting the Metropolitan Police—I will deal separately with them—the figures are these. On January 1, 1946, 33,900, and on April 1, 1950, 44,063. I compare those figures with the 1938 figure for the county and borough police
116
forces, which was 41,000. So we have 44,000 in 1950 as compared with 33,000 in 1946 and 41,000 in 1938. Since the establishments have been raised we are short of our establishments. Yet 30,000 men have been recruited since the war, and as a result of the increase in the establishments we are still 10,000 men short—I am now dealing with the whole country.
Now what has been the effect of the Oaksey recommendations so far as we can see at the present time? They began to operate on July 1, 1949. The average net monthly increase in recruits improved from 20 a month to 237 a month. That is a not inconsiderable rise. There has been a not inconsiderable improvement in wastage. Taking the entire country, for the first seven months of 1949, the pre-Oaksey time, the wastage was 137 per month; in the last eight months, the post-Oaksey time, it was 82.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Are those figures for the whole country, including the Metropolitan Police Force?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I am right in saying that those are figures for the country including the Metropolitan Force.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Not Scotland?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not Scotland. By "the country" in this context I mean England and Wales. Now I will come to the figures for the Metropolitan Police. The authorised establishment is 19,700—I am omitting small figures. There is a working party at the present time considering to what figure that establishment should be increased, if we can get the men. It may well be that it should be another 2,000. I do not commit myself to a figure, but it is fairly safe to say that some increase will be recommended. The authorised establishment to-day is 19,700, and the strength on April 1, 1950, was 15,600. That is a deficiency of 21 per cent. On August 1, 1949, the deficiency was rather more—it was 21.6 per cent. So there is an improvement, though I agree in all conscience a small enough improvement. The average intake into the Metropolitan Police—and in these figures I am dealing only with the Metropolitan Police—from January to July, 1949, the

117
pre-Oaksey period, was 88 men a month. From August, 1949, to March, 1950, it was 110 men a month. I have averaged my figures. From January to July the average is 88 a month, and August to March, 110 a month.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I think the Lord Chancellor will find that in February—which was one of the things which very much worried me—the rate had fallen back to about the pre-Oaksey figure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That may be so—I am afraid I have not that figure. So far as the wastage of probationers is concerned—and by "probationers" I mean the young men with under two years' service—the average monthly wastage in the six pre-Oaksey months was 25.28. That figure has dropped in the post-Oaksey period to 20.12, so that what we have is this: we have not anything sensational, but we have small improvements since the Oaksey Report, and on those figures it seems to me quite impossible to say that the recommendations to which the Oaksey Committee unanimously came have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Of course, we have to keep the matter under consideration, but there it is.
My Lords, I promised to deal with Scotland. There, in March, 1950, there were 141 more policemen and 100 more policewomen than in 1938. In addition to that—and here I touch upon a point of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford—many of the policemen in Scotland have been set free to do police duties by the introduction of a larger amount of clerical assistance. That was the theme the noble Lord was discussing when he talked about traffic lights. That, of course, is a mechanical way of doing the same thing, and I entirely agree with him that to any extent we can relieve the police of mechanical duties we ought to do it. The authorised establishment in Scotland is now 7,500, compared with 7,000 in 1938. The strength on April 1, 1950, was 7,067, so it is short of the new authorised strength by something of the order of 500. I have not given your Lordships detailed figures, but I have taken them to the nearest round figure.
Now I come to the next part of the speech—housing.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: The Lord Chancellor asked me to interrupt him if there were any questions he had left out. If the noble and learned Viscount is turning to housing, I should like to point out that he has not answered the first three questions in the first part of my speech.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am coming to that. I said that I should first talk about remuneration, then about housing, and then about general conditions affecting service; and the point which the noble Viscount has just raised will come into that third category. Let me say something about housing. For better or worse, wisely or unwisely, the past policy has been for the police authority not to build houses. It is desired that the police should live as ordinary citizens; and the police, no doubt, desire that they should live as far as possible in their own houses, because they realise that if they live in a police house attached to the police building they will, if they leave the Police Force, have to vacate the house. That was the position. Whether it was a wise system not to take some precautionary measures, by having at any rate a specific number of police houses, I very much doubt—being, as I say, wise after the event. We can none of us have any idea whether or not it would have been better if we had had a larger proportion of houses for married men provided by the police authorities themselves. But, unfortunately, we have not got them and we never have had them. For the single men we relied largely on the section houses, and I will say something about them in a few moments.
I can fairly claim that since the war we have made a tremendous effort in the face of most appalling difficulties. The police author ties in England and Wales have succeeded in getting 2,500 dwellings, the vast majority of which are new buildings completed within the last two years. We are now building houses at the rate of 100 a month, and we are getting tenders for more than 100 a month. If you compare that with the pre-war figure—it may be convenient to have that: the pre-war figure was under 100 a year—it will be seen that the figure of to-day is substantially greater. And may I add that when in regard to building you compare the difficulties of to-day with

119
pre-war difficulties, there is absolutely no comparison? But the Home Secretary is not content with this rate of building. He has said, and I say again on his behalf now, that he would like to see this rate of building greatly extended and if possible doubled.
The responsibility for providing houses in the ordinary sense rests on the local authorities as housing authorities, and although the police have power as police authorities (so long as they get the necessary allocation of houses) to build houses, yet, as the Oaksey Report said, the only satisfactory way out of this difficulty is that the housing authorities should come to our assistance to a far greater extent than heretofore. I know their difficulties. I know that they work on a points scheme and that it often happens that a policeman may not have been a resident in a particular local authority area and consequently does not qualify under the points scheme. But the fact is that the housing authorities have let us down badly on this matter; they have not given us nearly enough assistance in the past. I hope they will do so in the future.
The Minister of Health, in a circular dated 3rd April last, has put this matter to the local authorities most forcibly and pointed out what they should do: they should allocate tenancies of houses of their own; they should make sites available; and they should include houses in their contract. That responsibility rests with the local authority. All we can do as a police authority is, first, to request the local authorities and bring such pressure upon them as we can to allocate a fair number of houses; and secondly, build our own houses under our own power—and that we propose to do to the greatest possible extent.
May I now turn to London, and isolate London from the rest of the country for this purpose? Here we have the greatest difficulty of all with the housing authorities. The Commissioner estimates that he requires 3,200 married quarters. At the end of the war the Metropolitan Police owned 1,100. On March 31, 1949, the Metropolitan Police owned 1,359 houses. Your Lordships will find these figures set out in Appendix VII of Part II of the Oaksey Report. The position up to March 31, 1949, then, was that we had built 215. On March 31, 1950, there
120
were 297 houses under construction by the police authorities, all of which will be completed within the course of the year. I have ascertained, indeed, that *547 will be completed by next month. Tenders for 500 are now being placed. That is rather important: we have now got authority from the Minister of Health who, of course, has to fit our requirements into the whole scheme of things, to build 500 houses a year for the police in London—and that is quite separate from anything we may get from the housing authorities in London.
So much for the housing for married quarters. As regards section houses, the problem, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, knows very well, was one not so much of quantity as of quality. In the existing houses there were plenty of vacancies, but they were not fit places for the men. We are, therefore, at work on the reconditioning and improving of these houses at the same time as we are trying to build new ones. We have finished the reconditioning of one, and we have three in hand. We have plans for improving others. We have recently built a new section house in Hackney; we are about to start another section house in Limehouse; and we hope to press forward with these to the greatest extent possible and build others next year. Here, again, I hope that Lord Trenchard will not think that I am blaming him, because he told us in a previous debate that during his term of office, which ended in 1934, he had asked for 800 of these section houses as a mere beginning, and that all he had succeeded in getting was 180. That was in the year 1934—in pre-war days. What a lamentable thing—and I am not casting any stones at anybody when I say this—that we did not use that pre-war period to get our section houses up-to-date!
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: The noble and learned Viscount perhaps forgets that I went to Scotland Yard only at the end of 1931 and that this programme was not passed through Parliament until 1933.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said nothing to the contrary. I had in mind the noble Viscount's own observations on this matter. He told us the facts in a debate in this House in 1948, and I was trying to quote fairly. I am sorry if I got
*See Col. 133

121
my dates wrong. The noble Viscount then said:
"In the last year of my term of office (that is, in 1934), there were 1,200 married quarters. I strongly recommended in those days, as a start—I repeat, as a start—the provision of 800 additional quarters for married men. We could, with every justification, have asked for more, but we kept the demand to a figure which made it a practicable proposition in those days. Out of the 800 I asked for in 1934, and which were sanctioned by Parliament, I understand that only 180 have been provided."
That is what I was meaning to say. I was not casting the slightest aspersion on the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I was saying that in those days of piping peace, when we had a large number of builders available, when the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asked for 800, all he succeeded in getting, though no doubt he used a great deal of pressure, was 180.
I pass to Scotland. Scotland has now taken this line, and I think it a wise line: Scotland has resolved that in future the police authorities should provide all the accommodation required by the police. At December 31, 1949, the police authorities owned or rented 2,119 houses and, to carry out their 100 per cent. policy, they would require 7,125. The position is that 356 are now erected or in course of erection, and the allocation was 300 more this year. Scotland are lucky in this respect, as in many others: that in Scotland the housing authorities and the police authorities are, I think, one, and so there is not this divergent interest.
The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asked me some general questions about the Police College. I have referred to this point more than once as his "King Charles's head." He and I have had controversy about this so often that I hope he will not mind my repeating the argument on these lines for the benefit of some of their Lordships who have not followed the argument as we have. The noble and gallant Viscount was anxious that the police should be well officered and should have a system whereby they might fill all the vacancies in the Police Force from their own body, instead of having, as frequently happens to-day, to go outside for that sort of appointment. He, therefore, evolved a policy, for which there may be much to be said, of having a Police College. I believe he wanted to extend it to the whole country.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: No, never.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was certainly only operated for London—
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Quite definitely.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: —for the Metropolitan Police. There were some few people who came in by direct entry and some "bright young men" (as I think was the phrase used by the noble and gallant Viscount) were taken in after a very short service. The noble and gallant Viscount claims—and I think the figures support him—that, so far as efficiency was concerned, he obtained very good results; but to get his good results he has had to pay the price. I now come to the other side of the picture, as I see it. The price he had to pay was this: that a large number of the police disliked the idea intensely because they thought, "We have carried the burden and heat of the day. We have walked up and down our heats for years. Now we have some bright young thing coming in who has riot done this, though he is going to get all the 'plums'." Those are the rival arguments. I have tried to state them fairly. Whether I have succeeded or not, I do not know.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: The noble and learned Viscount puts his case in his way. I would only say that I would ask hint to re-read my previous speech on this subject. I prefer to put the case my way. The noble and learned Viscount puts it so that what I did sounds ridiculous.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am in the judgment of the House.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: I prefer my way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not tried to make it sound ridiculous, and I do not think I did. I do not think the idea was ridiculous. I thought it was perfectly intelligible. I understand the reason for it and I respect the noble and gallant Viscount's attitude. But I am pointing out that it did give rise to controversy, and it gave rise to such acute controversy—I say this quite deliberately—that it was one of the matters which most seriously affected the morale of the police. I believe that the police in London were not happy but were a discontented

123
force. I believe that one of the reasons was that, rightly or wrongly—I am quite prepared to say "wrongly"—the police disliked intensely the College which the noble and gallant Viscount, for the best reasons—I can well understand what his reasons were—had started.
I said on the previous occasions that we were not going to introduce any college of that sort. To that assertion I adhere. The position to-day is that a man has to serve five years as a constable and then two years as a sergeant before he can be promoted to inspector. Your Lordships will see that, since recruiting was suspended during the war, it follows that the only people who are eligible for the college to-day are those people who joined the Police Force before the war. Consequently, in looking at the figures of the college to-day, one must remember that one is dealing only with the men who entered the Police Force before the war—that is, before 1939. In consequence, there is no question to-day of getting very young men. But in the very near future, perhaps within the next year or the year after, we shall be seeing eligible men who joined after the war. Therefore we shall be able to get very much younger men. In the future—here I anticipate another question—there is nothing to prevent a man joining the police force at the age of nineteen—and there never has been. If he joins the police force at nineteen (it is unlikely that he will, because he is probably engaged on doing his military service then, but theoretically he can join at the age of nineteen), and if he does his five years' service, at the age of twenty-four he will have served five years, and therefore, will be in time to go to the Police College.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Will the noble and learned Viscount answer the question I sent to him last week when I asked about the number of junior courses for men under twenty-eight?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am going to give the noble Viscount the figures, if only he will trust me. I cannot forecast the average future age but, whilst on the one hand we must make provision for the young man—and here I recall, without repeating what I said, Lord Oaksey's suggestion that the five years should be reduced to four, and the
124
four years three—we must also have regard to the late-developing officer. We contemplate that when there are several College-trained candidates, it should be made a condition of his appointment to inspector that the man has been through his Staff College course, if I may call it that. It is obvious that a man, after passing his examinations and going through College, should soon thereafter get promotion.
I gather that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, wants 60 per cent. of the junior courses—that is to say, for sergeants—to be for men under twenty-eight. If that were so, and promotion came, say, within two years thereafter, and a situation arose where 60 per cent. of the inspectors were, say, under the age of thirty, it would throw out completely the whole balance of promotion. If 60 per cent. are of that age, what chance will the elder men have? Accordingly, the proportion is most unlikely to rise to that figure. But at the present time—and now I come to answering the specific question of the noble Viscount—when we are dealing only with pre-war candidates, there are no students on the course under 28. There are 43 between the ages of 28 and 35, and 107 who are over 35. The average age of the four junior courses so far held is just under 38. I say quite frankly that we want to reduce that age, and we think that when we start with the post-war recruits, the young men coming in, we shall reduce it.
My Lords, the next question the noble Viscount asked me was whether we could lengthen the course. One argument against lengthening the course is that nearly all the students are married. That means a prolonged separation. To lengthen the course would greatly increase the cost of the college; and, indeed, the length of the course determines the size of the college. By that I mean that to double the length of the course we should have to double the size of the college, and we think that the college is already big enough. We think that to start another college would be too expensive, and at present we do not contemplate lengthening the course. Of course, we shall learn by experience here; we are not going to be absolutely set and fixed. But the noble Viscount will remember that men coming to this college have been thoroughly grounded in police duties;

125
they have not to learn that, as at any rate some of the Hendon men have had to. Consequently, we feel that we should not at present increase the length of the course.
I think I have replied to all Lord Trenchard's questions, but if there is a question that I have not answered, I should be grateful if he would now tell me. Whether I have dealt with them all to his satisfaction, I do not know. I hope so. There is the position. I have set down those figures. Quite frankly, I do not suggest for a moment that they are not a matter for serious consideration. I concede that this is a very important problem, but your Lordships may rest assured that the Home Secretary is deeply conscious of the importance of the problem and is fully determined to do everything he can, through the police authorities, to see whether we can bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. I am not going to blame anybody for the past, but I do say that this problem is one which needs constant attention. If we are fortunate in doing what I hope we shall, I believe that the Government (whatever Government it may be) will in the course of the next few years be able to say that this problem has been solved.
5.4 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think we shall all agree that we have just heard, as we always do, an extremely powerful speech from the Lord Chancellor. He adopted a device with which we are not unfamiliar on different fields of battle—what is known as the offensive-defensive. When people feel themselves in a position of considerable embarrassment they often think it wiser to attack rather than merely to answer the attack. The noble and learned Viscount started off in real style by saying that it was not the Government's problem, that it was one that they had inherited, and they did not propose to have the responsibility put upon them. Of course it is true that there has always been a problem in regard to the police. In what I am about to say, I am going to deal merely with housing, because I am not an expert on pay and conditions. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, will deal with those matters when he comes to reply.
126
In regard to housing there has always been a problem, but I do not think it could properly be said that the problem existed to the same extent in earlier days as it does to-day. After all, as the Lord Chancellor said, before the war it was not the policy of a police authority to provide houses. That, I am sure, is absolutely correct; I do not question it in any way. But what was the reason? The reason is given by the Oaksey Report itself, in paragraph 284, where the Committee say that the position of a policeman or police authority seeking the tenancy of a local authority house is very different from what it was before 1939. A police officer in 1939, with the help of his rent allowance, would usually be able to pay the rent of a local authority house. That is not the position now. In the first place, I have no doubt that his housing allowance does not give him so great an advantage over competitors as it did at that time; and, secondly, the houses are not there. Those are two fundamental changes, and it is our submission that those changes should have been taken into account by the Government in framing their policy.
My Lords, I do not feel—and I am sure noble Lords opposite will forgive me when I say this—that in this matter of police housing the Government have shown quite the zeal that they should have done. I do not think that they have even indicated that they propose to take very strong action in this matter. As your Lordships know, as far back as February, 1948, just over two years age, there was first raised the question of an inquiry into police conditions, including housing. On that occasion, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, laid special emphasis, as anyone who reads his speech can see, on the housing aspect. There is no doubt that he was indicating that housing should be brought within the purview of any inquiry which the Government set up. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor never had the slightest belief in that from the start. This is what he said:
"I do not believe that the appointment of a Committee will get us one extra house or will improve the accommodation of the police in any way. I think it is for Ministers to decide whether they are to order that some extra priority be given."
That was the Lord Chancellor's view. Indeed, the Government did not show any

127
great enthusiasm for a Committee of any kind.
As your Lordships will remember, however, great and continued pressure was brought in this House, and eventually they set up the Oaksey Committee. Anyone who reads the terms of reference of the Committee will be struck by one remarkable fact. The Committee were:
"to be a Committee to consider in the light of the need for the recruitment and retention of an adequate number of suitable men and women for the Police Forces in England, Wales and Scotland, and to report on pay, emoluments, allowances, pensions, promotion, methods of representation and negotiation and other conditions of service."
In that long list of items to be considered, housing is never mentioned, perhaps for the reason given by the Lord Chancellor—that the Government did not think it would be of much use for a Committee to express any views on the subject at all. Yet in the minds of most of us that was the most important of all the aspects which had to be considered in connection with the reform of the police.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Marquess for a moment? I thought it was obvious that we needed every house we could get. All the Committee could do in this matter was to give us some statistics, some figures, and that sort of thing. For the rest, it is common ground that we need every house we can get.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Surely then it would have been natural to include housing in the aspects to be discussed by the Committee. In fact, as your Lordships know, the Oaksey Committee managed to include housing by the ingenious device of bringing it in under the heading of "other conditions." So, in fact, the subject was dealt with, and it is right that it should have been. Nevertheless, my impression, even after listening to the powerful advocacy of the noble and learned Viscount to-day, is that not an enormous amount has been done. For instance, in the Metropolitan Police area, which he said was a black spot—and it is the black spots we have to look at, because they are the ones which most need attention—the position as I understand it is that for that area, on what should be housing for 20,000 men there is a deficiency of 4,000. What
128
is being done to rectify that position? At the time of the Oaksey Report (I understand from what the noble and learned Viscount said that there has been a fractional improvement since), by the police authorities and the Home Office there had been built 167 houses. That means that from the end of the war until March 31, 1949, only 167 houses had been built for the police in the whole of the Metropolitan area. Some 86 more were under construction. At the same time, the programme of new barracks, which had been put in hand by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, when he was at Scotland Yard before the war, was stopped in 1947.
Let us take the case of the local authorities on whom the noble and learned Viscount said the main burden should fall. During that period, just over 70,000 houses were completed in the Metropolitan area, and a further 36,000 are under construction. Out of that great number of houses, only 468 were given to the Police Force during that period. In those circumstances it is not unnatural that recruitment should become much more difficult than it was in the years before the war. So far as I can make out, in a great many parts of the Metropolitan area no priority is at present being given to the Police Force; they just take their chance, as do all other members of the community. That, surely, is a situation which might engage the attention of the Government. I understood from the noble and learned Viscount that the Minister of Health had used his best endeavours, but that he could not get any more done. When he wants to get something done, the Minister of Health is not always very careful, it seems to me, about the methods which he employs to achieve results. In this particular case, he does not seem to have used his usual energy and ingenuity.
The signatories of the Oaksey Report suggested, as the House knows, that 7 per cent. of the houses built by local authorities should be allocated to the police. From what the noble and learned Viscount said it was not clear to me whether that particular recommendation was being adopted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We cannot adopt that recommendation. The

129
responsibility is, by law, on the local authority. We could, of course, introduce legislation to take responsibility away from the local authorities; we cannot say what the local authorities would do. We have added the pressure of the Ministry of Health to the observations of the Oaksey Committee to try to induce them to give many more houses to the police.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Viscount on February 11, 1948, after expressing the opinion that a Committee would do no good said:
"I think it is for Ministers to decide whether they are to order that some extra priority be given."
They have not given any such order.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It must be done by legislation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Have they considered legislation and turned it down?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They have considered legislation, and they have turned it down. To my mind, that is a very regrettable fact. The people of this country are at present faced with an unprecedented wave of crime. It has been agreed in all our debates, and it is generally agreed, that one of the main causes of that crime is the inadequate supply of police. So this is a matter not merely of making the police comfortable but of providing for the welfare and security of the people of this country. There have been other expenditures, on Government buildings and matters of that kind, which have been willingly approved by the Government, but there has been nothing for the police. I am not seeking to make any debating point on this matter, but it seems to me to bear out the contention of many of us that this matter is not being considered—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess a question? The principle which he is now discussing is very important. Do I understand that he is in favour of the Government issuing instructions to local authorities as to priorities to be applied to houses they
130
build other than police houses, or to police houses only?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We are talking only about the police to-day. It is just a question. I am only quoting what the Lord Chancellor himself said:
"I think it is for Ministers to decide whether they are to order that some extra priority be given."
Does the noble Viscount the Leader of the House suggest that the Lord Chancellor did not mean anything by that statement?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I gather that the noble Marquess is expressing what he wishes to be done. This is a very important matter, and I ask him whether he is in favour of issuing instructions to local authorities about the people to whom they should allocate their houses.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If there is a public service the people in that public service must be provided with houses. They must be provided by the Government, by the county council or whoever it may be, or by someone else. I am not saying that the ideal way is to order local authorities to provide houses. I am saying that houses must be provided. If the Home Office, who I suppose are ultimately responsible, are unwilling to provide them, the Government must consider an alternative. The Lord Chancellor, as I understood him, said they have considered this alternative and have turned it down. I now ask what are they going to do about it. I have quoted figures of houses built and houses needed. It is evident that houses built are woefully inadequate to fulfil—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Marquess forgive me for interrupting him again? There are two ways of doing it. One would be to take power to order local authorities to allocate their houses in a certain Way, and the second to give the police authorities power to build houses and give there the necessary permits. That we have done. As I have told your Lordships, the Ministry of Health have authorised the police authorities in London to build 500 houses a year.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may say so, I think that that is the right alternative, but I still do not think that enough is being done. I think they have

131
been far too slow. We raised this question two years ago, and after all this time they are still "woffling" about. They have now decided to build 500 houses a year for the police in London. The police area public service and houses should be provided for them. I still submit that what we have heard to-day is not a satisfactory answer. The Government have not shown sufficient energy and, to my mind, are not showing sufficient energy yet. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said, and I am sure it is true, that it is very difficult to keep up the strength of the Force in a time of full employment. We can understand that. But in such circumstances there is only one thing to do, and that is to make the conditions under which the police work so much more attractive than those under which other people are employed that they will want to join the Force. I believe that is the method employed in the United States and elsewhere. We give them no advantage, no priority, in the way of ho using.
The noble and learned Viscount congratulated himself and the Government on the improvement in recruiting which is at present visible. It is better that the figures should go up instead of down, but the figures which the noble and learned Viscount gave (though I was not able to take them all down) are very small, and at the present rate it will be a great many years before the deficiencies in establishment are rectified. I feel that the House should make it clear, that further measures are necessary. The crime situation is bad, and I am sure that the public wish to have the situation of the police and their own situation improved. Though I have no doubt that His Majesty's Ministers are now more prepared to look at the matter as one of great urgency than they were when we
132
first raised these important questions, I still feel that unless we keep pushing at them, they will slide back. I do not know what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, intends to do. He may decide to divide or to refrain; but if he decides to divide the House, I shall go into the Lobby with him, because I feel that that is the only way of getting something done on this most important question.
5.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack again referred to the opinion that when I left the Force in 1935 it was discontented owing to my policy. In self-defence, I want to say that I was asked to go to the Police Force by a Coalition Government—which included Labour. I went, and for three years I had much to do with the Force. I hate talking about this matter, but I should like to say that for the last year I was not unpopular and the police welcomed what was done. As a policeman said the other day, we humanised the Force. Turning to the debate this afternoon, I am profoundly disappointed with the lack of energy shown. To me this is not a political question but a question of the energies shown by whatever Government are responsible. In the answers he gave this afternoon, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has shown that he does not understand the feelings on the subject in the Force and in the country. Therefore, if anybody will follow me, I will divide the House on this point.
On Question, Whether the said Resolution shall be agreed to?:
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I prefer to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.