Sitting of 23 May 1950

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
    SUNDERLAND EXTENSION BILL
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (HARTLEPOOL) BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Hartlepool," presented by Mr. Barnes; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills; and to be printed. [Bill 29.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Army Council
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to revise the composition of the Army Council in order to include the Director of the Territorial Army.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): No, Sir. The appropriate military members of the Army Council are now responsible for Territorial Army matters in the same way as for the Regular Army.
    Mr. Harvey: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that the special aspect of Territorial Army service demands that it should be represented on a higher level than is the case today?
    Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. The Director of the Territorial Army is called into consultation as a matter of course when matters affecting the Territorial Army are concerned.
    Sir George Harvie-Watt: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good practice to revive the scheme which was in operation before the war under which there was a Deputy Director-General of the Territorial Army who was himself a Territorial officer?
    Mr. Stewart: The circumstances are somewhat different from what they were before the war. The Territorial and Regular Armies are more closely integrated and I think that the present procedure gives the best result today.
    Brigadier Head: Does the Under-Secretary not think that now that the Territorial Army will shortly comprise more than half the whole Army, an impression will be given to members of the Territorial Army that it is a Regular Army "racket" and that their representative is being kept off the Army Council, on which he should have a place in view of his responsibility?
    Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. It is not as if the Territorial Army were unrepresented. The Deputy-Chief of the Imperial General Staff is the member of the Army Council who is responsible for Territorial Army matters.

    National Service Men, Malaya
    Mr. Nigel Daviesasked the Secretary of State for War what period of training is required for a National Service conscript before he is sent to Malaya on active service.
    Mr. M. Stewart: All National Service men must complete at least 16 weeks' training and a total of 18 weeks' service before being sent to Malaya. They must also have completed their basic training.
    Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave anxiety among parents throughout the country that these conscripts should be sent to Malaya after

    1817
    such a very short period of training? Is it possible for steps to be taken to give them, say, 20 or 24 weeks' training in future before they go on active service in the jungle?
    Mr. Stewart: When they arrive in Malaya they have four weeks' training before being sent on operations. Both my right hon. Friend and I are well aware of the anxiety that is felt, and if and when it is at all possible for an extension of the time of training to be made, that will certainly be done.

    Warrant Officers, Cairo (Allowances)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War how long his Department has been considering the question of the pay and allowances payable to warrant officers serving with His Majesty's Embassy in Cairo; how many other capitals are under similar consideration; and when he expects to come to a decision.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The detailed review of the allowances payable to the warrant officer serving with His Majesty's Embassy, and other comparable Service personnel serving in Cairo, began when the information on which to base such a review became available to the Departments concerned, in February, 1950. It is hoped that a decision will be reached this week. The allowances at one other capital are under consideration.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the difficulty which causes his Department to spend three months in assessing the allowances payable to warrant officers in two capitals? Is not the hon. Gentleman's answer this afternoon a complete contradiction of his right hon. Friend's answer on the same point last week?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member will realise that it is not these two capitals only which are concerned. When a decision of this kind is made, these allowances have to be kept in step with other comparable allowances elsewhere. These matters are always somewhat complicated. The hon. Member will see that a decision is to be reached this week. I cannot see that there is any contradiction between what I have said and what my right hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Did not the Under-Secretary's right hon. Friend say last week that it had not taken three months to come to a decision, which is completely contrary to the hon. Gentleman's admission today?

    Combined Services Entertainment
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War what the ad ministration costs are of Combined Ser vices Entertainment; and to what extent British artists are being employed.
    Mr. M. Stewart: These administrative costs, which do not involve any net charge on public funds, are estimated at £21,000 during the current financial year. In Germany about half of the artists employed are British. Elsewhere, they are all British.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can my hon. Friend say why in Germany only 50 per cent. of the artists are British? Is he aware that there is some dissatisfaction in the profession that there is a small proportion of British artists employed in Germany?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, but there seems to be far more satisfaction among the audiences, who prefer that there should be a mixture of British and German shows. It must also be remembered that it is somewhat cheaper, and therefore possible to put on a greater number of shows, if some German artists are employed.

    Tropical Kit Allowance
    Mr. Basil Nieldasked the Secretary of State for War why extra tropical kit allowance is available only to male officers who were posted to stations requiring such kit on or after 3rd November, 1948; and if he is aware of the hardship falling upon officers so posted prior to that date.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The date 3rd November, 1948, was selected as being the date of introduction of improved scales of tropical kit and of the announcement that the State would in future meet the reasonable cost of officers' uniform on first commissioning. My right hon. Friend is not aware of hardship having fallen on officers posted to tropical

    1819
    stations before that date. It is understood that most of them were already in possession of the majority of the items authorised by the new scales.
    Mr. Nield: Is it not a fact that a considerable number of short service officers were posted to the Far East in August, 1948, and did not, of course, qualify for the extra £22; and is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that they feel this is rather unfair, and that they have not had explained to them the reason for the limiting date?
    Mr. Stewart: The reason for the limiting date has, if my memory serves me rightly, been mentioned in the House before and will be known to them. Whenever a new allowance is issued, there will be some who fail to qualify, but I do not think, in view of what I have just mentioned, that it involves hardship.

    Royal Artillery (Boy Trumpeters)
    Mr. Deedesasked the Secretary of State for War whether it was by his authority that trumpeters from the Welch Regiment were employed in playing fanfares during Mr. Bruce Woodcock's training exhibitions at Gwrych Castle, North Wales.
    Mr. M. Stewart: No trumpeters from the Welch Regiment were so employed. On one occasion some boys of the Royal Artillery who had received free admission tickets to Gwrych Castle to watch the boxing each evening gave a trumpet fanfare voluntarily and in their own time.
    Mr. Deedes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these boys were in fact cadets, and should not greater care be exercised in the use of His Majesty's uniform for advertising commercial circuses?
    Mr. George Thomas: Boys will be boys.
    Mr. Stewart: It looks as if this occasion gave pleasure and profit to all concerned, and I see no reason to criticise it.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith waite: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what call these trumpeters were sounding? Was it the "Charge" or the "Retreat"?
    Mr. Stewart: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put that Question on the Order Paper.

    Married Quarters
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to prevent the families of soldiers who are being ordered overseas being evicted from houses under the control of his Department or the local Territorial associations.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Before a soldier is allotted a married quarter he has to sign a certificate, included in which is a statement that he understands that he will be required to move his family when he is posted from the station and alternative accommodation is offered. It is the policy of my right hon. Friend to enable soldiers to be united with their families at their duty stations whenever possible and there are long waiting lists for married quarters vacated by the families of soldiers posted abroad. No family of a serving soldier is required to leave War Department or Territorial Army married quarters unless alternative accommodation, usually in a families camp, is available for them.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware of the case which I have forwarded to his Department of a Regular soldier with 17 years' service who is now getting a posting to Malaya; and on the same day as he got that posting his wife got an order for her eviction, along with four children, from the Territorial house?
    Mr. Stewart: We should certainly see that no such order was carried out with improper haste, and in any case not unless alternative accommodation was available.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Are these military quarters known as tied cottages?
    Mr. Stewart: Only by people who confuse two distinct ideas.

    Caretakers (Pay)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for War why the pay of caretakers employed in Northern Command was, on 19th April, 1950, reduced from £4 15s. per week to £4 6s. 4d. per week; and whether caretakers will in the future be permitted to earn overtime pay for Sun day work.
    Mr. M. Stewart: My right hon. Friend is not aware that this reduction has been made. Perhaps the hon. Member will forward details of the caretakers he has in mind when it will also be possible to deal with the second part of this Question.

    Swimming Instruction
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War how many lives of Service personnel were lost by drowning during training operations during each of the last 20 years; how many of these persons could and could not swim, respectively; and what is being done to increase the proportion of swimmers in the Services.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The statistics requested are not available. Swimming is one of the subjects included in the annual training of all ranks of the Army. Inadequate bathing facilities frequently limit training, but it is agreed in principle that, subject to the availability of labour, materials and money, public funds should bear the expense of providing the necssary facilities in the most reasonable way at any particular station.

    Church Parades
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Secretary of State for War why he is contemplating the re-introduction of compulsory church parades in the Army.
    Mr. M. Stewart: My right hon. Friend is not contemplating this action.
    Mr. Thurtle: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while my Question appears to be unnecessary, I heard his answer with great satisfaction?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister not contemplating this action because he believes the practice of the Army is inconsistent with Christianity?
    Mr. Stewart: No, Sir; I think it is more because we think the practice of compulsion is not consistent with Christianity.

    Employees, Ceylon (Gratuity)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of discontent among civilian employees of the United Kingdom War Department in Ceylon, whose employment has been, or
    1822
    will be, terminated; and if he has considered the possibility of increasing the gratuity for those affected.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Yes, Sir. A substantial improvement in the gratuity terms provided for in the regulations under which these employees serve has already been announced. It is regretted that no further improvement can be made.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is this a response to the discontent and to certain representations then made, or was it just the reverse?
    Mr. Stewart: It was on 3rd April that the concession was announced and we were following very largely the advice offered by the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East Land Forces.
    Mr. Sorensen: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to believe now that this is acceptable and satisfactory to the complainants?
    Mr. Stewart: I believe that the complainants would have preferred certain other proposals, under which some employees would have been better off and others worse.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    Development Corporations
    Earl Wintertonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how far the Crawley Development Corporation and other development corporations are subject to regulations laid down by his Department in respect of the lay-out and appearance of the houses erected by them.
    The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton): My policy is to do all I can to stimulate building, both of houses and factories, by all these development corporations. If they feel themselves to be obstructed I hope they will let me know.
    Earl Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer, then, mean that this corporation and other corporations are not subject to any electoral control, as, for example, a local authority, and that they can in fact carry out what plans they like?
    Mr. Dalton: I am not quite sure that I understand what the noble Lord means by

    1823
    "electoral." All that happens is that their proposals are merely sent for observation to the local authorities charged with planning functions. So far as I can find—and I have inquired into the matter—my Department have never turned down any of their proposals on the ground of lay-out and appearance.
    Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will publish an up-to-date list of the members so far appointed to the Boards of New Town Development Corporations, together with details of any salaries, pensions and other allowances; a separate list showing all individuals holding more than one appointment on either these boards or other boards of a nationalised character; and what those double appointments are.
    Mr. Dalton: As the answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say whether the second part of my Question is answered, giving a list of such people? If so, then there are several "boys" with more than one job.
    Following is the answer:
    Chairmen of New Town Corporations receive £1,500 per annum, but Lord Beveridge and Sir Lancelot Keay who are Chairmen of the Board of Aycliffe and Peterlee and Basildon and Bracknell respectively receive £2,500. Vice-Chairmen appointed before May, 1949, receive £1,000. Those appointed since that date receive £750. Ordinary members receive £400. These appointments are not pensionable. Subsistence allowances and travelling expenses are payable to members on the usual scale. The present membership is:
    AYCLIFFE

    The Lord Beveridge, K.C.B., F.B.A (Chairman).

    Mr. W. N. Davis, O.B.E. (Vice-chairman).

    Mr. A. J. Alsop, F.R.C.A.

    Mr. T. Benfold, C.B.E., J.P.

    Mrs. Cahill, F.R.I.B.A

    Mr. G. C. Gibson.

    Mr. T. H. Summerson, J.P.

    BASILDON

    Sir Lancelot Keay, K.B.E., F.R.I.B.A (Chairman).

    Mr. E. L Protheroe, B.Sc. (Vice-Chairman).

    Mr. M. Auliff, J.P.

    1824

    Mrs. Gregory, O.B.E., J.P.

    Mr. F. Jobson, J.P., M.I.E.C. M.J.I.E.

    Mrs. W. M. Knight, J.P.

    Mrs. D. M. Sargent.

    Colonel S. A. Smith, M.C., M.I.C.E., A.M.I.M.E.

    BRACKNELL

    Sir Lancelot Keay, K.B.E., F.R.I.B.A. (Chairman).

    Mr. H. W. Wells, F.R.I.C.S., F.A.I. (Vice-Chairman).

    Mrs. L. M. Brooke.

    Lieut.-Colonel W. E. Cross, F.R.I.B.A.

    Mr. P. Fullerton-Bustard.

    Mr. W. H. Hopkins.

    Mrs. E. Jarvis.

    Mr. N. Kenyon. B.Sc., J.P

    CORBY

    Mr. H. Chisholm, A.C.A., M.I.I.A. (Chairman).

    Lord Douglas of Barloch. K.C.M.G. (Vice- Chairman).

    Mr. A. V. Easton.

    Mrs. Kerlie, J.P.

    Mr. A. J. Martin.

    Mr. J. I. Piggott, C.B.E., M.C

    Mr. J. Wallace.

    Mr. W. Young.

    CRAWLEY

    Sir Thomas Bennett, C.B.E., F.R.I.B.A. (Chairman).

    Mr. L. E. Neal (Vice-Chairman).

    Mrs. D. Bolton.

    Dame Caroline Haslett, D.B.E.

    Mr. A. Hyman.

    General Sir Charles King, K.B.E.

    Mr. J. Marshall.

    Mr. E. Stanford, C.B.E.

    CWMBRAN

    Mr. F. H. Huxley Turner (Chairman).

    Mr. F. E. Warbeck Howell (Vice-Chairman).

    Mr. W. Birmingham.

    Mr. W. E. Brown.

    Mr. E. C. Hutchins.

    Mr. P. Jones.

    Mr. F. E. Price.

    Mr. W. G. Thomas.

    HARLOW

    Mr. R. Costain (Chairman).

    Mr. R. O. C. Hurst, F.C.S., J.P. (Vice- Chairman).

    Mr. T. H. Joyce.

    Mrs. E. A. Newton, B.A., J.P.

    Mr. A. Reed, J.P.

    Dr. Stephen Taylor.

    Mr. R. B. Williams-Thompson.

    HEMEL HEMPSTEAD

    Rt. Hon. Lord Reith, G.C.V.O., G.B.E., C.B., T.D. (Chairman).

    Mr. R. H. Wilson (Vice-Chairman).

    Mr. H. Dive, O.B.E.

    Mr. C. T. Higgins.

    Sir Gerald Lenanton.

    Mr. C. D. Pilcher.

    Mr. W. H. Ryde.

    Mr. T. H. Simmons, J.P.

    Mr. H. W. Wells, F.R.I.C.S., F.A.I

    PETERLEE.

    The Lord Beveridge, K.C.B., F.B.A. (Chairman).

    Mr. E. Robinson (Vice-Chairman).

    Mr. H. O'Neill.

    Mr. H. Lee.

    Mr. F. C. Pette.

    Mr. T. Haworth.

    Mr. F. D. Nicholson.

    Mr. C. S. Robinson.

    STEVENAGE

    Mrs. M. Felton, Ph.D. (Chairman).

    Mr. L Corina (Vice-Chairman).

    Colonel J. A. Davies, O.B.E., M.I.M.E., A.M.I.E.E., M.I.I.A.

    Mrs. E. Dennington.

    Mr. C. T. Every, C.B.E., F.R.I.C.S.

    Mr. S. Gestetner.

    Mr. P. T. Ireton, J.P.

    Mr. W. A. Winson.

    WELWYN AND HATFIELD

    Mr. R. C. Gosling, J.P. (Chairman).

    Mr. R. L. Reiss (Vice-Chairman).

    Mr. G. R. Lowe.

    Mr. J. H. MacDonnell.

    Mrs. L'Estrange Malone, J.P.

    Mr. H. L. R. Matthews, C.B.E.

    Mr. C. G. Maynard, J.P.

    Mr. W. H. Playle, J.P.

    Mr. P. E. Longmore, C.B.E.

    The only other cases of members holding more than one appointment on public boards are:
    LORD REITH

    Chairman, Hemel Hempstead Development Corporation.

    Chairman, Commonwealth Telecommunications Board.

    Chairman, Films Finance Corporation.

    Mr. H. W. WELLS

    Vice-Chairman, Bracknell Development Corporation.

    Member, Hemel Hempstead Development Corporation.

    Crawley New Town
    Earl Wintertonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is aware that the rents for the houses being erected by the Crawley Development Corporation are higher than those for houses which have already been erected since the war by the Horsham Rural District Council in the town of Crawley, and that the rents of many of them are beyond the reach of the average wage-earner; and for whom these houses are intended.
    Mr. Dalton: This may well be, but new town corporations are not able, as local authorities are, to reduce the rents of new houses by averaging them with
    1826
    those of pre-war houses. The houses now being built at Crawley are well worth the rent and many families are only too happy to pay it.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of four-roomed houses, the houses built by the local authority are being let for 19s. per week and in the case of the same type of houses also erected since the war by the Crawley Development Corporation, the rent is 28s. per week? Is he aware that this discrepancy will give rise to great difficulty in the future, as these are both public authorities?
    Mr. Dalton: We shall have to deal with these difficulties in the further future when the development corporation hand over, when their work is done, to the local authority. I may add that this particular corporation are planning to build some houses with somewhat lower rents than those which they have hitherto put up.
    Sir H. Williams: As this town is designed to accommodate the surplus population of Croydon, does not the Minister think it is rather hard luck on my constituents to have to pay such extortionate rents?

    Martley and Tenbury Wells
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he proposes to adopt the recommendations of the Abercrombie Report in regard to the safeguarding of the scenic and landscape beauty of the Martley and Tenbury Wells rural areas in the county of Worcester.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, and I understand that the Worcestershire County Council share my view.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the dreadful devastation that would follow opencast coal mining in this particularly beautiful area; and, in view of the impossibility of restoring the wooded and well-timbered hill-slopes and landscape, will not he consider refusing permission to the Ministry of Fuel and Power to continue these opencast mining projects.
    Mr. Dalton: Without reference to the wider questions of opencast coal in general, my information is that no borings

    1827
    have yet been made in this area and there is no firm proposal as yet to work opencast in this area. If such a proposal were to be made, it would have to be considered in the light of the West Midland plan, to which the hon. Member has referred.
    Mr. Nabarro: May I ask the Minister, further, whether he will refer to the 13 series of drawings which have already been issued by the Ministry of Fuel and Power to all the local authorities concerned in this area, which clearly set out the opencast borings which are projected?
    Mr. Dalton: I did not deny that. I said that they had not been made and, therefore, no firm proposal was before me for opencast workings in this area.
    Mr. De la Bère: Could we have an assurance that none of the land will be desecrated?

    Road Sign, Abberley
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware that his Department recently refused permission to Mr. J. B. Morton, The Elms Hotel, Abberley, Worcestershire, to erect a road sign reading, "For Elms Hotel, fork left"; and how the erection of this sign would detract from the scenic amenities of the district.
    Mr. Dalton: The Worcestershire County Council refused consent, and I upheld their decision on appeal.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding this refusal to allow the erection of an inoffensive signpost, it is now definitely proposed by the Minister of Fuel and Power to requisition the whole of the surrounding land, including the kitchen garden of The Elms Hotel, for opencast coal mining, and what does he think that will do to the scenic amenities?
    Mr. Dalton: That does not seem to arise out of the Question. The Worcestershire County Council turned down this proposal because they thought it was contrary to local amenities and that it would distract the attention of travellers going round the corner. I upheld them because I think that probably they are the best judges of local amenities.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Have similar signs near Dorking just been taken down?

    Building Alterations, Lake District
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will give details of his proposals to allow freer building alterations, etc., in the Lake District.
    Mr. Dalton: In the Lake District a farmer must give the planning authority 14 days' notice of his intention to erect a permanent farm building and must provide a site plan, description and details of the materials. Within this period, the planning authority may require that the design and external appearance of the building shall be subject to their approval.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that, consistent with maintaining the beauty and amenities of this part, both agriculture and the hotel industry, and other industries where applicable, will have freedom to develop?
    Mr. Dalton: The recent Regulations which I issued are designed to ease the planning restrictions very considerably upon farm buildings all over the country and, in spite of the special provisions, to a considerable extent in the Lake District.

    Ironstone Workings, Northamptonshire
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware that the present condition of ironstone workings in Northamptonshire constitutes a grave interference with agricultural production and with the amenities of the countryside; and when he expects to make a statement on the question of restoration.
    Mr. Dalton: I have recently visited this area and am very much concerned at the devastation due to ironstone workings. I hope soon to make a statement on the action which I propose to take.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor hoped to issue such a statement in January, and will he remember that this is a matter of real urgency which is causing a great deal of feeling not only in the countryside but elsewhere?
    Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Dalton: During my visit, which lasted for two or three days, I had the

    1829
    opportunity of meeting many people with authority to speak for the local community.
    Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Could the Minister be more explicit instead of using the word "soon"? The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is right when he says that there is strong local feeling in the area because of the promises made over so many months which, up to now, have not been kept.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. There are one or two interests which conflict in this matter and which I am trying to harmonise; but I am anxious not to delay.

    Harlow New Town
    Mr. Nigel Daviesasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many industrial concerns have so far been granted a building licence to erect factories in the Harlow New Town.
    Mr. Dalton: One building licence has already been issued, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is issuing industrial development certificates and building licences for two other firms. He is also issuing industrial development certificates for two more firms and I have every reason to expect that building licences will follow soon.
    Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it may be hoped that the building of these factories will start reasonably soon because, as he is aware, upwards of 1,000 houses are already being built in Harlow and it is, therefore, a matter of prime urgency?
    Mr. Dalton: Once the building licences have been given, it is part of the work of the Corporation to synchronise the building of factories and houses, and I am sure that they will.

    Development Charge
    Mr. Asshetonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what are the highest and lowest sums so far assessed for development charge on building new dwelling-houses.
    Mr. Dalton: One thousand six hundred and fifty pounds and nil.
    Mr. Assheton: Does the Minister appreciate the tremendous deterrent to private house building represented by
    1830
    these very heavy development charges which are levied?
    Mr. Dalton: It is all laid down by law, and I seem to remember that the law embodying this—the Act of 1947—was not regarded as controversial by the Opposition when it was going through.
    Mr. Assheton: Be that as it may, does the Minister appreciate that the way in which this is working out—and that is what we are concerned with—is that private house building is being deterred by these very high charges? Will the Minister be good enough, as this concerns his Department, to look into the matter to see whether or not he should advise the Government to take some action?
    Mr. Dalton: As the House knows from previous answers I have given, I have asked the Chairman of the Central Land Board to make proposals to me for administrative easements in this matter I received his proposals a few days ago. and I am going into them. I hope that after Whitsuntide I shall be able to say something about them. I do not accept the view that house building is being restricted by the development charge.
    Mr. Jennings: Would the right hon. Gentleman disclose the basis upon which these charges are made, because they seem to vary in every part of the country?
    Mr. Dalton: The basis is laid down by law. The basis is the difference between the value of land with and without planning permission.

    Stevenage New Town
    Mr. Nigel Daviesasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether it is with his permission that the chairman of the Stevenage New Town Development Corporation has actively engaged in party politics; and whether he will issue instructions to prevent chairmen taking such action in future.
    Mr. Dalton: I agree with my predecessor's rule that chairmen of new town corporations should be free to speak at political meetings outside the new towns with which they are associated.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister also extend that principle to curbing the rather contentious oratory of the chairman of the Stevenage Corporation in the areas

    1831
    of other new towns where it is likely to bring the principle of new towns into the political arena?
    Mr. Dalton: It must be remembered that these are only part-time appointments. It would be contrary to practice to impose unreasonable restrictions on persons holding part-time appointments, whatever their political party, to express their political opinions. I do not want to be unduly censorious in this matter. I agree that it should be done within reason and with some discretion, having regard to circumstances, but I am not prepared to muzzle them completely.
    Earl Winterton: Does that mean that the chairman in question is free to come into my constituency at Crawley and make a political speech on behalf of the Socialist Party objecting to my Questions to the right hon. Gentleman today? Perhaps the Minister will answer that?
    Mr. Dalton: The remark which I made about reasonable discretion, of course, covers new town policy generally. I should have thought it most undesirable for the chairman of a new town corporation to make a speech relating to new town policy generally, but I have no evidence that that has yet taken place.

    Basildon New Town
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning (1) what proportion of the houses to be erected this year by the Basildon Development Corporation will be allotted for housing families living within the area designated for the new town and on the waiting list of the Billericay Urban District Council;
    (2) what proportion of the houses to be erected this year by the Basildon Development Corporation will be allotted for sale to owner occupiers.
    Mr. Dalton: Allocation of new houses is a matter for the development corporation and not for me. But I am glad to hear that a high priority will be given to building trade workers and to workers in new factories. No houses built this year will be for sale.
    Mr. Braine: But how does the Minister reconcile that answer with the repeated assurances that he and his predecessor
    1832
    have given that the new town will benefit the 25,000 people already living in the area?
    Mr. Dalton: There is no conflict at all between my answer and that statement.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Sickness Benefit (Certificates)
    Mr. Reader Harrisasked the Minister of National Insurance when she issued her directive to branch offices instructing them that a claim may establish title to sickness benefit, by furnishing certificates signed by a person other than a registered medical practitioner, such as an osteopath, Christian Science healer or dentist; by what power such a directive was issued; and how many sickness claims have been paid on the evidence of certificates issued by persons other than registered medical practitioners.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): The National Insurance (Medical Certification) Regulations, 1948, require all claimants for sickness benefit to submit evidence of their incapacity. While this evidence normally includes a medical certificate, the statutory adjudicating authorities can take into consideration alternative evidence of incapacity if they think fit. I have no power to issue directions to these authorities. The information asked for in the last part of the Question is not available, but the numbers are believed to be very small.
    Mr. Harris: Is the Minister satisfied that certificates should be accepted from faith healers, herbalists and other persons over whom control must necessarily be very vague, and is she herself, as a registered medical practitioner, satisfied with a state of affairs whereby the Willesden Institute of Natural Healing can tout for business by issuing circulars stating that certificates are available for National Insurance purposes?
    Dr. Summerskill: This method of determining incapacity has been operating for nearly 40 years, and if the hon. Gentleman was a little older he would remember the sect called the "Peculiar People "——
    Sir H. Williams: They are all over there now.
    Dr. Summerskill: —who have a religious objection to doctors, and who have, in fact, formed their own approved society. I am quite aware of the fact that this right which people have of exercising conscientious objection, and which we believe it is right for them to have, may be abused, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keeping a careful eye on the matter and that we have certain safeguards. We have sick visitors and also regional medical officers who can be called in for further medical examinations.
    Mr. Harris: Does not the Minister draw some distinction between public funds and the funds of an approved society which were not public funds before?
    Dr. Summerskill: Really, the hon. Gentleman is displaying appalling ignorance. Does he not know that, before 1948, these approved societies used both public funds and private funds?
    Mr. Ewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her reply will give great satisfaction to thousands of people in this country who have for many years exercised this right of freedom of choice in determining what type of treatment they should take when sick, and that her devastating reply to the prejudices of the hon. Member opposite will be gratefully received?

    Industrial Injuries (Irish Republic)
    Mr. Oliverasked the Minister of National Insurance whether any reciprocal arrangements exist with the Government of Eire in respect of the provisions of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and, in particular, whether any provision is made for a wife residing in Eire whose husband meets with an industrial accident in this country which results in his death.
    Dr. Summerskill: There is at present no general reciprocal arrangement, but my Department is exploring the possibility with the Department of Social Welfare in Dublin. Existing Regulations provide for the payment of death benefits, within certain limitations imposed by the Act, to widows residing in the Irish Republic.
    Mr. Oliver: Will my right hon. Friend see that the earliest possible steps are taken to come to some arrangement, as great hardship and injustice arise by reason of the existing arrangements?
    Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not hear the last part of my answer. Widows do benefit.
    Mr. Oliver: If that be so, might I send my right hon. Friend a case in which a widow has been refused benefit, although her husband was killed in this country and she herself resides here?
    Dr. Summerskill: Certainly.

    Industrial Disease (Hosiery Industry)
    Mr. Oliverasked the Minister of National Insurance whether her attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Percy Wyld, of Longley Hill, Derbyshire, whose claim to industrial injury benefit has been rejected, and whether, in view of the report of the specialist appointed by her Department that Mr. Wyld was suffering from dupuytrens contraction which was directly attributable to his employment as a machine hosiery knitter, she will take steps to have this disease prescribed under Section 55 of the Industrial Injuries Act, especially as by reason of the introduction of heavier, longer and faster running machines in the hosiery industry involving considerable friction to both hands, this trade is a potential source of disablement from this disease.
    Dr. Summerskill: I have studied the reports on this case, which is the only one in this industry which has been brought to my notice. I do not think I would be justified in taking the action suggested, but if my hon. Friend has any further information about the incidence of the disease in this industry I will consider it.
    Mr. Oliver: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her own specialist makes it quite clear that this disease was contracted by reason of this man's employment, and that, if she will consult the Hosiery Workers' Union, she will find that there are similar cases, though not so pronounced, and that there are cases which have been prescribed where only one or two persons in an industry have been discovered as contracting the disease by reason of their employment?
    Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend will read Section 55 (2) of the Act, he will see the conditions which have to be satisfied before a disease is prescribed.

    Friendly Societies (Payments)
    Mr. Stanley Prescottasked the Minister of National Insurance (1) what sums are outstanding for payment by her Department to branches of friendly societies; and when she anticipates these liabilities will be discharged;
    (2) if she is aware of the hardship experienced owing to cash balances due to friendly societies not having been paid by her Department; and what steps she will take to expedite payment.
    Dr. Summerskill: I am not aware of any sums owing by my Department to branches of friendly societies. There are a few large societies with which a final settlement awaits completion of audit, but the amounts involved are relatively small. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, I will certainly make inquiries.
    Mr. Prescott: Quite apart from sums actually owing to friendly societies, is the Minister aware that in a great many cases money is owed to the secretaries of these societies and, in view of the fact that they are only small sums, will she take steps to meet these obligations at the earliest possible moment?
    Dr. Summerskill: Certainly I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has to be some final settlement, and I hope it will be completed in the autumn, but if any secretary feels aggrieved, I should be glad if he will get in touch with my Department, when we will try to make him happy.

    Assistance Officers
    Mr. Douglas Houghtonasked the Minister of National Insurance whether she will now arrange for the National Assistance Board to exhibit at each area office the name, address and telephone number of the local officer to whom a person in need of assistace may apply when the area office is closed.
    Dr. Summerskill: I am informed by the Board that they have considered this matter very fully and are satisfied that the present arrangements are adequate.
    Mr. Houghton: Will my right hon. Friend take notice of the assurance given by her predecessor in Standing Committee "C" on 10th December, 1947, and implement it as soon as possible?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, I have read that, of course, and a full investigation has been made, but my hon. Friend will recall that before 1948 the relieving officers under the old Health Act were responsible for discharging the duties which are now discharged by the executive officers and area officers. We discovered that almost the only cases which the relieving officers were called upon to deal with outside, their ordinary hours were those which needed admission to hospitals or mental hospitals. That work is done by the health authorities, and therefore it would be rather extravagant to set up a special service now.

    Assistance
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of National Insurance how many people are getting public assistance in the borough of Accrington; and how many were getting unemployment assistance or public relief on the corresponding day in 1939.
    Dr. Summerskill: At 25th April last, about 3,400 assistance grants were being paid from the National Assistance Board's office at Accrington, which also covers territory outside the borough. I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available.
    Mr. McAddenasked the Minister of National Insurance the total number of people in receipt of National Assistance at the last convenient date.
    Dr. Summerskill: At the end of April, 1950, regular weekly grants of National Assistance were being paid to 1,192,000 persons; the grants take into account the needs of dependants.
    Mr. McAdden: In view of this very large number of people who are in receipt of National Assistance in this era of so-called full employment, will the right hon. Lady consult her right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, because it is quite clear from this that these pensions are entirely inadequate and that the time has come for a review, which will ease the work of her Department?
    Miss Irene Wardasked the Minister of National Insurance to what extent discussions are in progress with the National Assistance Board for improving the scales of supplementary pensions to meet the increasing cost of living for old age pensioners.
    Dr. Summerskill: The Regulations increasing National Assistance scales, which were approved by Parliament on 4th May, are coming into operation on 12th June.
    Miss Ward: Does the Minister really believe that the new scales adequately compensate for the ever-increasing cost of living to the old age pensioners?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think that if the hon. Lady reads the Debates, she will see that an adequate answer was given to her allegation.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say how many people, out of the million persons who are in receipt of assistance from the National Assistance Board, are old age pensioners receiving supplementary assistance of this kind?
    Dr. Summerskill: Not without notice.

    Sickness Benefit (Claims)
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the Minister of National Insurance what obligation rests upon doctors, nurses and other members of hospital staffs to notify patients that claims for sickness benefit must be lodged within three days; and whether she is satisfied that the present arrangements are working efficiently
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friends have asked hospitals in the National Health Service to make suitable arrangements to this end, and I have no reason to think that these arrangements are not working satisfactorily. I am, however, also asking the National Insurance Advisory Committee to consider certain relaxations in the Regulations governing claims by persons in hospital.
    Mr. Baker White: Is the Minister aware that these cases do arise, and that I have sent to her comparatively recently three instances in which people have gone into hospital for operations or because of serious illness, have not been notified of the three days' rule and have lost benefits as a result?
    Dr. Summerskill: I told the House the other day, when a Motion by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) was discussed, that I was considering it and that I hoped to make certain relaxations.
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the Minister of National Insurance if she is aware that many members of the public do not realise that a claim for sickness benefit must be lodged within three days; and whether, in view of the considerable increase in the number of claims for benefits refused arising from this ignorance of the Regulations, she will take steps by means of a wireless announcement, posters and Press advertisements to remind the public of this important Regulation.
    Dr. Summerskill: I have no reason to believe that their is general ignorance of the rules, which have received widespread publicity, including a recent short film. Every opportunity is taken and will continue to be taken to bring the matter to public notice.

    Contributions (Students)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of National Insurance if she has considered a letter from the Secretary of the West Ham Trades Council, Mr. H. C. Willig, concerning the National Insurance payments of students over the age of 18 years; what was the request that the trades council made; and what reply she has sent.
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. I was asked to review the regulations governing the payment of contributions by students, and have replied explaining why I do not feel able to do so.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the Minister realise that many students find it very difficult to pay the contributions, and could she extend the concession which is given to students under 18 years of age to those who are over 18?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think my hon. Friend has forgotten that these students have the opportunity of paying the contributions after they have obtained work, and I am sure he would agree that it would be inequitable to the majority of young people who are called upon to pay these contributions while they work if we gave special privileges to the minority who are fortunate enough to have a university education.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Bricklayers, Shrewsbury
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Labour how many bricklayers in Shrewsbury were registered as unemployed on 1st April, 1949, and 1st April, 1950.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): None at either date.

    Iron Moulders
    Mr. W. G. Bennettasked the Minister of Labour how many general iron moulders were unemployed on 1st May, 1950.
    Mr. Isaacs: At 13th March, the latest date for which figures are available, there Were 253 men registered at employment exchanges in Great Britain for employment as iron and steel founders and moulders.

    Irvine
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Labour (1) what was the number of unemployed registered in the Burgh of Irvine during the month of April, 1949; and what proportion of those unemployed during that month had been idle for one week or more;
    (2) what was the number of unemployed registered in the Burgh of Irvine during the month of April last; and what proportion of those unemployed during that month had been idle for one week or more.
    Mr. Isaacs: The number registered as unemployed at the Irvine employment exchange was 76 at 11th April, 1949, and 167 at 17th April, 1950. Figures showing the number who had been unemployed for one week or more are not available, but the number who had been continuously on the registers for more than two weeks at the dates in question were 37 and 126, respectively.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trade unions in this area are becoming rather perturbed at the increasing curve of unemployment arising chiefly from the fall off of work in the Royal Ordnance Factories, and will he devote some attention to it with a view to curing unemployment in that area?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am afraid that the trade unions must have misunderstood the position because, as I see the figures, they are not due to the factories mentioned, but cover a number of industries including coal mining, chemicals, shipbuilding, and so on.

  RESERVE FORCES (VOLUNTEERS)
  Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Labour whether he will extend the rights in conection with paid leave afforded to National Service men under S.I., 1950, No. 308, to volunteers in the Reserve Forces.
  Mr. Isaacs: The Statutory Instrument referred to does not afford National Service men any rights in connection with paid leave. Therefore, no question of extending these to volunteers arises.
  Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, therefore, that volunteers, who are the best recruits to the Territorial Army are on exactly the same basis as the National Service men in every respect?
  Mr. Isaacs: I think that the hon. Gentleman has either not got the actual position clear in his own mind or that he has not put it clearly in his Question. If he cares to have a talk to me afterwards, I will explain it to him.

  WAR MEDALS
  Sir I. Fraserasked the Prime Minister to state, in respect of the three Services, how many war medals were awarded, how many have been issued, and how many are unissued after they have been applied for, and because claimants have not applied, respectively.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): About 6,480,000 members or ex-members of the full-time United Kingdom Forces are eligible for some 20 million campaign stars, defence and war medals. Issues have been made to 2,350,000. Claims from some 630,000 remain to be dealt with. More than half of these latter are in the Navy, where prize money payments have taken precedence. Some 3,500,000 have not claimed their campaign stars and medals.
  Sir I. Fraser: Could the right hon. Gentleman see that the forms which were placed in the post offices when this admirable scheme was instituted are revised and reviewed, and that publicity is given to them over the wireless?
  The Prime Minister: I will bring the matter to the attention of the Service Ministers concerned.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Wages Policy
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the result of his recent discussions with the Trade Union Congress regarding a national minimum wage; if any figure has been agreed as the minimum required for a worker to meet his reasonable needs; and if he will make a statement.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 25th April, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Osborne: As the T.U.C. are considering the desirability of establishing a minimum wage for the nation, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he has considered it at all, and, if so, at what figure he thinks it could be established?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir, I cannot.
    Mr. Osborne: Why not?
    Sir William Darlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated gain or loss to his Department in Income Tax and Profits Tax if all wage and salary earners' personal incomes were brought up to a minimum of £6 per week with a proportional fall in taxable profits.
    Sir S. Cripps: It is impossible to say what would be the effect on the Revenue of a hypothetical change of this nature.
    Sir W. Darling: Am I to understand that the Chancellor is not unsympathetic to the view of the minimum wage?
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that 2,550 companies paid £112,670,000 in ordinary dividends in 1950 and £112,791,000 in 1949, and that since the
    1842
    appeal for restriction of wages made in February, 1948, wages have increased on an annual basis by some £160 million; and what steps he is taking to stop this inflationary process.
    Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to my Budget Speech.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Chancellor aware that I read his speech? Will he ask those claiming increases in wages what is the good of a thousand paper pounds a week if they are worthless because the credit of this country has been ruined by the Labour Government?

    Purchase Tax (Ambulances)
    Mr. Prescottasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the proposal of His Majesty's Government that ambulances should attract Purchase Tax of 33⅓ per cent.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the Third Schedule to the Finance Bill.

    Dividends
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement as to the response to the appeal made in February, 1948, by the Prime Minister to restrict profits and dividends.
    Sir S. Cripps: Since the Prime Minister's statement, about 90 per cent. (measured in terms of issued capital) of industrial companies have paid dividends not greater than their dividend in the preceding year.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Chancellor aware that quite recently Odham's Press, who own 50 per cent. of the "Daily Herald," increased their dividend from 17½ to 20 per cent.? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that a good example for a Labour paper to give the country?
    Sir S. Cripps: There is a Question on that matter on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Llewellynasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Odham's Press have increased their dividend from 17½ per cent. to 20 per cent.; and what action he proposes to take in view of his policy of dividend limitation.
    Sir S. Gripps: Dividend limitation is voluntary, and though I deplore the increasing of the rate of dividend, I cannot take action in any individual case.
    Mr. Llewellyn: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that if he would write a letter to the "Daily Herald" on these lines, it would be advantageous?
    Sir S. Cripps: It is not usual for a Minister to write letters to the Press.
    Earl Winterton: Even if he cannot take any action in his official capacity, would it not be a friendly action for the Chancellor to see Messrs. Odham's and show them that their action makes absolute nonsense of the Socialist case?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, I think they can read HANSARD.
    Mr. Watkinson: Would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider the matter, in fairness to all companies—and not only Odham's—who are faced with the situation of an enormously increased wages bill? I believe that in the case of Odham's it is something in the nature of £500,000 a year against £20,000 dividend. This is not a single case. There are many companies all over the country facing the same problem, and, if the wage freeze is being broken, surely it is only fair that they should have some recourse——
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a supplementary question. Supplementary questions should not be as long as that.

    Channel Ports (Customs Officers)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Customs officers it is estimated will be employed at each of the various ports from which cross-Channel day trips are to be allowed this season when these boats leave and return.
    Sir S. Cripps: It is expected that the Customs staff normally in attendance at the Channel ports will suffice to deal with those passengers who make the crossing with day return tickets.
    Mr. Teeling: Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman give some figure? He must have worked out how many people are likely to be employed?
    Sir S. Cripps: No extra people will be employed, but only those already there. As I understand it, the proposals of the Railway Executive are merely to allow people, where there is room on their ordinary steamers, to go on a day trip, so that there will be no more passengers than normally.
    Mr. Teeling: In view of the fact that before the war people who sent boats backwards and forwards from Eastbourne and Brighton paid to have Customs officials from Newhaven and Shoreham, could not they be allowed to do so now?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that Customs officials are so rare and valuable that we could not utilise them in that way.

    Tourists (Currency Allowances)
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the recommendation of the Council of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation that member countries should make the allowance available to tourists equivalent to 150 dollars he will amend the tourist rate for France to £53 to correspond with the current exchange rate.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. When accepting this recommendation we made it clear and it was accepted that we regarded the existing £50 allowance as being broadly equivalent to 150 dollars.
    Mr. Edelman: While British travellers to France this year will not entirely share my right hon. and learned Friend's view, is it not a case that France has a trade deficit with the Commonwealth as a whole, and that therefore it would be in the interest of all to raise the present tourist allowance for France?
    Sir S. Cripps: It would not be to the interest of general agreement in O.E.E.C, who do not like preferential treatment for different countries.

    Savings
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, with the aim of increasing national savings, he will consider allowing the first £1,000 of savings to be exempt from Income Tax and Surtax.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. But I would remind the hon. Member that the interest on National Savings Certificates is not liable to tax and that up to £500 can be invested in the current issue in addition to holdings of previous issues.
    Sir W. Darling: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any further ideas for making savings attractive, in view of the continued fall of savings in this country?
    Sir S. Cripps: No. Sir.
    Mr. Osborne: Is not the Chancellor aware that the quickest way to make savings more attractive is to stop the rise in the cost of living, and thus safeguard the people's savings?

    Stockings (Customs Confiscation)
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pairs of nylon stockings have been confiscated by Customs since 1st January, 1950; what is the estimated value of these confiscated goods; and what is being done with them.
    Sir S. Cripps: Nylons are not distinguished from other stockings in the Customs records, but in the first quarter of this year 20,250 pairs of stockings were seized, of which the import value would be about £5,000. They will in due course be sold through the Surplus Textiles Corporation for the benefit of the Exchequer.
    Sir W. Darling: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when such sales are likely to take place is a matter of considerable public interest?
    Sir S. Cripps: As the hon. Gentleman is so interested, I will see that notice is sent to him.

    Income Tax (Nurses)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that nursing staffs are at present being assessed to Income Tax upon the estimated value of their board and lodging; and whether he will amend the law to remove this anomaly.
    Sir S. Cripps: I understand that the new scales of pay for nursing staff provide for payment of a gross wage, from which
    1846
    a deduction is made for board and lodging when it is provided by the employer. Income Tax is chargeable on the gross pay, and this new arrangement far from being anomalous, puts nursing staff in the same position as the ordinary taxpayer, who has to pay for his board and lodging out of income which has already borne tax.
    Sir H. Williams: Does it put them in the same position as the firemen we were discussing last night, in the absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
    Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Order Paper.

    Capital Issue
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he approved of the recent capital issue of H. and G. Simonds.
    Sir S. Cripps: Consent to the issue was given following on advice from the Capital Issues Committee who had consulted the Government Departments concerned.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Chancellor aware that £20 million was subscribed for this brewery company which required only £1 million? Could he not divert this money into more useful channels? If private investment has disappeared, where did this £20 million come from?
    Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Gentleman will see from the Press this morning that we have to divert these sums to more useful channels.

    Arts Council (Select Committee's Report)
    Mr. Linsteadasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the recommendations made in paragraphs 36 to 38 of the 19th Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, dealing with the Arts Council of Great Britain; and what action he has taken or is proposing to take on this matter.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. The observations of the Treasury on this Report have been furnished to the Committee, and I presume that they are likely to be published shortly.
    Mr. Linstead: Can the Chancellor say whether the Government have accepted the general proposal that the Arts Council shall confine their activities to grants and guarantees?
    Sir S. Gripps: I think the hon. Member had better wait until he sees what the Treasury answer is.

    Exchange Control
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent a general dispensation has been given to foreign branches of all firms resident in this country under Section 39 of the Exchange Control Act, 1947.
    Sir S. Cripps: None, Sir, beyond the provision contained in S.R. & O. 1947 No. 2039, to which I referred in my answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question on 16th May.

    Land Values (Depreciation Payments)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he anticipates he will be able to make a scheme under Section 58 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for the distribution of payment of depreciation of land values before 31st December, 1950.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): No, Sir. The work to be done is such that completion of a scheme in 1950 is quite out of the question.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that there is a general feeling that there may be such delay in the payment of these credits that it will be like the postwar credits scheme? Will he look into the matter to expedite it?
    Mr. Jay: We are certainly anxious to carry it through as quickly as possible.

    Canadian Timber (Price)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated import of Prime Clear Columbian Pine, Douglas Fir, during 1950; and what is the estimated increase in price due to devaluation.
    The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): It would be contrary to normal practice to disclose an anticipated programme or its prices.

  CIVDL SERVICE

    Approved Associations
    Mr. Henry Straussasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regulations regarding the associations to which established civil servants, may belong have been made since 4th July, 1947, when the Civil Service (Approved Associations) Regulations, 1927, were repealed.
    Sir S. Cripps: None, Sir.
    Mr. Strauss: Is it, then, the fact that no regulation now prohibits the affiliation of a Civil Service trade union to the Communist Party?
    Sir S. Cripps: No regulations have been made.

    Officials (Power of Entry)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will give, by Departments, the number of officials who have the power of entry into private houses, offices and factories, respectively.
    Mr. Jay: As the information is somewhat lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Financial Secretary whether all those officials have the right of entry into private premises, even though it is not practised?
    Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer, he will have that information.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: While the answer may be long, could the hon. Gentleman give the total number?
    Mr. Jay: No, I do not think I had better give individual details.
    Mr. Shackleton: Is it not a fact that many of these powers arose from Acts of Parliament passed by previous Governments, and would my hon. Friend draw attention to the Lunacy Act, which has these provisions?
    Mr. Jay: It is the case that most of these powers have been placed on the Statute Book by past Conservative Governments and I am, therefore, looking into the matter to see whether they are all necessary.
    Following is the answer:

    OFFICIALS WITH POWER OF ENTRY

    (The figures shown in Column (2) are included in Column (3))

    Department

    Number who have power to enter private houses used exclusively as such

    Number who have power to enter business premises, land and private houses not used exclusively as such

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

    …

    —

    2,979

    Ministry of Civil Aviation

    …

    —

    48

    Customs and Excise

    …

    —

    1,800

    Ministry of Education

    …

    —

    580

    Ministry of Food

    …

    —

    1,112

    Forestry Commission

    …

    —

    100

    Ministry of Fuel and Power

    …

    —

    267

    Ministry of Health

    …

    20

    136

    Home Office

    …

    —

    77

    Inland Revenue

    …

    2,667

    2,667

    Ministry of Labour and National Service

    …

    —

    2,430

    Ministry of National Insurance

    …

    —

    809

    Ordnance Survey Office

    …

    —

    2,411

    Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

    …

    —

    94

    Tithe Redemption Commission

    …

    —

    198

    Board of Trade

    …

    —

    173

    Ministry of Transport

    …

    —

    907

    War Damage Commission and Central Land Board

    …

    998

    998

    Department of Agriculture for Scotland

    …

    —

    350

    Scottish Education Department

    …

    —

    122

    Department of Health for Scotland

    …

    —

    18

    Scottish Home Department

    …

    —

    66

    TOTAL

    …

    3,685

    18,342

    Clerical Class Competitions
    Lord John Hopeasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, now that the Commissioners have decided to simplify the method of issuing the practice parts of the papers in the open clerical class and limited clerical class competitions, he will order a review of those cases where disqualification has arisen from a misunderstanding of the procedure in connection with those parts.
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir.
    Lord John Hope: Is the Minister aware that in these cases of disqualification those disqualified are told by the Commissioners, who have not interviewed them, that they, the Commissioners, are satisfied that these people have deliberately tried to take unfair advantage of their fellow competitors? Would he look into this and see that apologies are sent in all these cases? It is most unfair.
    Mr. Jay: I understand that this is so, but I have no reason to think that the Commissioners would say that unless they had satisfied themselves of the fact.
    Lord John Hope: How can an accusation of dishonesty be justified when the man in question has not been interviewed by those who make the accusation? That is what has happened.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    War Damage (Business Scheme)
    Lieut.-Colonel Hydeasked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to make payments generally on war damage claims by owners of small businesses whose plant and equipment have been damaged or destroyed.
    Mr. Bottomley: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on this subject to the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Odey) on 21st March last. He will notice that advance payments are already being made where this is necessary to avoid undue hardship.
    Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Is the Minister aware that there is still considerable dissatisfaction, particularly on the part of

    1851
    owners of small businesses whose claims have been agreed with the valuers but who are still anxiously awaiting payment of the claims to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Bottomley: Claims of under £100 are dealt with at once.
    Sir H. Williams: What would the Minister say about an assurance company which behaved in this way?

    New Factory, Nantlle Valley
    Mr. Goronwy Robertsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take action to expedite the building in the Nantlle Valley, Caernarvonshire, of a new factory, for which a grant from the Development Commission has been approved.
    Mr. Bottomley: I understand that the Gwyrfai Rural District Council have already invited tenders in connection with this factory. The Board of Trade controller will, of course, continue to give any help and advice which the council may require.
    Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the finance necessary was made available some 12 months ago, building operations have not yet started, though the local authority has done everything required of it in this matter? Would he look into the position personally as we, in this area, believe that there are certain obstacles that can be removed regionally as well as locally?
    Mr. Bottomley: I have looked into that and have hopes of speedy development.

    Bankruptcy and Companies (Winding Up)
    Mr. Enrollasked the President of the Board of Trade why the account showing the receipts and expenditure on account of Bankruptcy and Companies (Winding Up) Proceedings during the year ended 31st March, 1949, and presented to the House of Commons in dummy on 7th April, 1949, was only made available to hon. Members on 5th April, 1950; and whether the account will be printed and made available for public inspection.
    Mr. Bottomley: I regret the delay in making the account available to hon.
    1852
    Members which was due to the continuance of a war-time economy procedure. We are arranging for the account to be made available at an earlier date in future, and we will consider whether a return to the pre-war practice of printing it for general publication could be resumed.
    Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister there fore say when the account may be expected this year?
    Mr. Bottomley: I could not offhand.

    Utility Linen Supplies
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the burghs of Coatbridge and Airdrie are receiving an adequate supply of utility sheets, towels, pillow slips and dish-towels.
    Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that the supply position in these goods in Coatbridge and Airdrie is materially different from that in the rest of the country. He has, however, as recently announced, appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary to consider means of securing an early increased supply. I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy of the terms of reference and particulars of the membership of this Committee.
    Mrs. Mann: Can my hon. Friend say whether this Committee will bring more utility sheets and towels to Coatbridge? Is he aware that the women of Coatbridge do not know to whom they can complain when there is a shortage of these necessities?
    Mr. Bottomley: I should have thought there would have been no doubt in respect of the latter part of the Question. With regard to the former, I cannot anticipate the findings of the Committee.
    Mr. Osborne: Can the hon. Gentleman say how housewives can expect an increase in utility supplies when the cost of cotton has gone up by 50 per cent. since devaluation?

    British Industries Fair
    Mr. Jannerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the results of the British Industries Fair, so far as overseas trade is

    1853
    concerned; whether he will give the amount of orders received; and whether he is satisfied that such orders can be dealt with and goods delivered within a period satisfactory to the buyers.
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the estimated value of orders placed by overseas buyers at the British Industries Fair, 1950;
    (2) how many visitors from abroad attended the British Industries Fair in London and Birmingham; and what the total attendance was.
    Mr. Bottomley: As only a small proportion of business negotiations arising out of the Fair can be concluded before it closes it is not possible to assess the actual value of business done; moreover manufacturers are not under any obligation to make reports to the organisers. There is, however, strong evidence that this year's Fair showed a marked advance in the volume and the nature of export enquiries especially from hard currency markets, and there was a notable increase in the number of firm orders placed. We have every confidence that manufacturers will not have accepted orders which they will be unable to fulfil within the stipulated time, and we shall of course always be ready to look into cases where special difficulties arise.
    The number of overseas visitors (individually counted) in London and Birmingham totalled 19,005 compared with 17,061 in 1949, establishing a new record for the Fair. Home trade visitors numbered 113,102 compared with 121,555.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware mat, at any rate in the Birmingham section of the fair, foreign buyers this year were increasingly selective in the placing of orders?
    Mr. Bottomley: I think that is a very good thing. Once they select the goods and recognise the quality and price are right, we hope they will continue to trade.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that he has not understood the implication of my Question, which is that we are reaching a position when we have to be more competitive with regard to price and quality?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am quite sure that industry understands that as well as the Government does.

    Japan (Trade Talks)
    Mr. Teelingasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the trade agreement talks, which are now commencing between this country and Japan to cover the whole Commonwealth, include the negotiations for a continuous Australian-Japanese trade agreement also taking place; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bottomley: The Commonwealth countries which are about to negotiate jointly a renewal of the Sterling Area-Japan Trade Arrangement are the following: the United Kingdom and Colonies, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Ceylon. I am not aware of any other Australian-Japanese trade negotiations.
    Mr. Teeling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has recently appeared in the Press that a Minister in the Australian Parliament has made that statement?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, there was some wordy Press statement which we have failed to understand. I have sent to Canberra for an explanation.
    Mr. Teeling: When the hon. Gentleman gets a reply, will the House be informed?
    Mr. Bottomley.

  MEMBER'S SPEECH
  Mr. Porter: Mr. Speaker, would I be in order in calling your attention to the fact that in the OFFICIAL REPORT today the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) has lost his record for fast speaking? The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Wills) made a speech yesterday which has taken three and half columns to record, and he did so in one minute. He started at 7.12 p.m. and, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he finished at 7.13 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: I have had no notice of this. I do not know what the hon. Member is talking about. I should have had notice.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL

    Clause 1.—(AMENDMENTS OF 7 & 8 GEO. 6. c. 44.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 10, leave out "references to" and insert "words".
    3.32 p.m.
    The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a purely formal and drafting Amendment.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I ask the hon. Gentleman for a little more explanation of this Amendment which he says is purely drafting? He will remember that during the discussion of this Bill in Committee we went through it with the greatest care and we suggested a large number of Amendments. The hon. Gentleman now asks us to agree to this Amendment without any explanation of the reason why it has been found necessary. I think we are entitled to some explanation.
    Mr. Younger: Both this and the next Amendment in line 13 are purely drafting points. I do not think there is any difference in the sense, but I should have thought the hon. and learned Member would prefer to have words of this kind as simple as possible. What this Amendment does is to take out the words "references to" from the following phrase in Clause 1:
    "… for the references to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom … there shall be substituted respectively references to the United Kingdom."
    and so on. It is simpler to say:
    "… for the words His Majesty's Government… there shall be substituted the words."
    It is just as accurate; it is rather better English, and it is something which the draftsmen thought would be more appropriate.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment in line 13 agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 26, at end insert:
    1856
    (3) In the proviso to subsection (2) of section one of the said Act of 1944, as amended as aforesaid (which proviso provides that an Order in Council relating to an organisation to which the said section one applies shall not confer any immunity or privilege upon any person as the representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or as a member of the staff of such a representative), for the words "shall not confer any immunity or privilege" there shall be substituted the words "shall be so framed as to secure that there are not conferred on any person any immunities or privileges greater in extent than those which, at the time of the making of the Order, are required to be conferred on that person in order to give effect to any international agreement in that behalf and that no immunity or privilege is conferred."
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment was introduced in another place to implement the undertaking which I gave when the Bill was passing through the Committee stage that we would try to find a form of words which would limit the immunity or privileges granted under this Bill strictly to those which at the time of the making of the order are required to give effect to the international agreement which is under consideration.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is an important Amendment, and I recognise that the hon. Gentleman, by securing that it would be made in another place, has carried out the undertaking which he gave in Committee on 31st March. The effect of it will be this, as I understand it. The Order in Council conferring the privileges will now be limited to the conferring of privileges covered by the international agreement. That in itself, of course, would not really be sufficient because it would mean that this House would be giving up to a very large extent its power of control over these matters. In particular it might mean, taken by itself, that there would be an international agreement whereby all kinds of privileges and exemptions from taxes and rates were conferred upon British representatives, and then this proviso would merely mean that the Order in Council would not give any greater exemption from taxes and rates than was contained in the international agreement.
    However, in view of a later Amendment which we shall be considering, I think there is adequate safeguard against anything of that kind happening, and

    1857
    therefore, I say on behalf of the Opposition that we welcome this Amendment, having regard to one which we shall be considering later, and we are glad that the hon. Gentleman has fulfilled his undertaking so fully.
    Sir Herbert Williams: I am glad to see this Amendment not only for its own sake but also because the Minister of State and his colleagues in another place have realised that the time we spent some weeks ago was not entirely wasted.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 26, at end insert:
    "(4) In accordance with the provisions of this Act, subsections (1) and (2) of section one of, and the Schedule to, the said Act of 1944 (as amended by the said Act of 1946 and this Act) shall have effect as set out in the Schedule (Subsections (1) and (2) of section one of, and the Schedule to, the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act. 1944, as amended) to this Act."
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a new subsection which is intended to govern the proposed Schedule which appears later on the Order Paper in the Amendment to page 3, line 22, to add a new Schedule "A," There is one other provision which I might mention at the same time. That is the Amendment on page 2, line 5, which is also related to the fact that we are now proposing to add the new Schedule "A."
    This series of Amendments does not alter the sense of the Bill but it does carry a stage further what we did in the 1946 Act. We added at the end of the Bill a Schedule which showed the old Schedule as amended, and avoids the necessity of referring to anything other than this Schedule when one wishes to see the effect of the 1944 Act as amended by the 1946 Act and by this Bill. It is purely a matter of convenience.
    Hon. Members may remember that when this matter was passing through the Committee stage I was asked by the Opposition to do something of this kind, and at the time I pointed out that we were proposing as soon as may be after this Bill had become law to have a consolidated Act. I suggested that therefore it was not necessary. However, there were further requests that it should be
    1858
    done, and while we still adhere to our intention to have a consolidated Act, which will do exactly the same as is done in this new Schedule, we are quite willing to do this. The House will see that the new Schedule has certain words in heavy type indicating where the changes occur.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: We welcome this Amendment, but I think it is a little belated. If the Schedule which is attached to this Amendment had been incorporated in the Bill as originally presented to this House, it would have made it very much easier for hon. Members to understand what this Bill was intended to do. The Bill as originally presented contained neither a Schedule of this character nor any Explanatory Memorandum. I am glad that the Government have at last thought it desirable that there should be a Schedule of this character, and I am quite sure that this Schedule will be of great use to those who in the future have to make reference to this Bill when it becomes an Act. In relation to any other Bills which emanate from the Foreign Office and which, like this, are of a complicated nature, I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the desirability of attaching to the Bill an Explanatory Memorandum and also a Schedule of this character, which, I think, is now commonly referred to as a Keeling Schedule.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: Line 26, at end, insert new Clause "A" (Provisions as to Orders in Council).
    (1) A draft of any Order in Council proposed to be made under the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944, after the passing of this Act shall be laid before Parliament and the draft shall not be submitted to His Majesty except in pursuance of an address presented by each House of Parliament praying that the Order be made.
    (2) Any power conferred by the said Act of 1944 to make an Order in Council shall be construed as including a power to revoke or vary the Order in Council by a subsequent Order in Council made in accordance with subsection (1) hereof.
    (3) Neither subsections (1) and (2) of section two of the said Act of 1944 nor subsection (2) of section five of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946 (which relate to the annulment of Orders in Council) shall apply to an Order in Council made under the said Act of 1944 after the passing of this Act, and subsection (4) of the said section two (which relates to the variation and revocation of Orders in Council) shall cease to have effect.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This new Clause introduces the affirmative resolution procedure for Orders in Council proposed to be made under the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944, in place of the negative procedure. This was introduced in another place and we are quite willing to accept it. The hon. and learned Member has not been very gracious about the manner in which we have treated some of the other arguments brought forward and in which we have been willing to accept Amendments in another place, but I hope he will at least find it possible to welcome this Amendment.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's observations. So far, I have welcomed every one of these Amendments. I have pointed out that our task would have been much easier—the task of hon. Members on all sides—and time would have been saved if some of the Amendments had been made at an earlier stage. I do not think his remarks are, therefore, in the least degree justified.
    So far as this Amendment is concerned, I should like to make it perfectly clear straight away that, of course, we welcome it. This Amendment has to be taken with one which we have just considered because it means that if, perchance, there was an international agreement giving exemption from taxation of one kind or another to British subjects and an Order in Council implementing that agreement, it would still be open to this House to say that they did not agree with it and it would still be necessary, now we are to have the affirmative resolution procedure, for the Government to make out the case for giving that particular exemption.
    Since the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act has developed so much since 1944, I am sure it is right that the affirmative resolution procedure should now be adopted so that this House, which should be concerned particularly with cases in which privileges are conferred upon British subjects and others, should have an opportunity of satisfying itself that the grant of this privilege is entirely justified. In conclusion, I must say that I cannot help thinking that if the Parliamentary
    1860
    Secretary had been more gracious and more conciliatory in the Committee Stage, then a great deal of time might have been saved in the passage of this Bill.
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While, like my hon. and learned Friend, I welcome the Amendment, I think the Minister of State had no particular grounds for congratulating himself upon accepting it. It is a little difficult to understand why this provision was not in the Bill as introduced. If the Government had really wished to safeguard the rights of this House, then a provision of this sort would have been inserted when the Bill was originally drafted. We have had no explanation whatsoever from the Minister of State why that was not done nor, indeed, have we had an explanation why at the eleventh hour His Majesty's Government have changed their minds and decided to accept the Amendment.
    In fact, only a provision of this sort gives to this House any effective control over these Orders. The negative procedure is wholly ineffective during the times when the House is in Recess and, as hon. Members know, it is also subject to the difficulty that the rights under it are generally exercised in the small hours of the morning. It is surely elementary that, where privileges of this serious character are being granted to people, Parliamentary control should be assured by the only effective means—the affirmative procedure. One might add that the action of another place in inserting this provision in the Bill goes a long way to support the admirable statement of the important rôle that another place make take in safeguarding the rights of the citizen which was made last week by the noble and venerable Lord, Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.
    Sir H. Williams: I am delighted that we have this proposal in the Bill, and I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that we might have done better a couple of months ago if the missing Parliamentary Secretary had known better how to handle his job. I can quite understand why he is not here today. I am interested that we are adopting this procedure. As I understand it, the affirmative procedure is generally adopted in respect of anything which involves a charge on the subject,

    1861
    In all other cases, the negative procedure is adopted. The principles of the negative and the affirmative procedures are to some extent set down in the Donoughmore Report.
    What are the fundamental principles? I have always thought that we had the affirmative procedure when any Order involved expenditure or a charge on the subject. As in this case His Majesty's Government have agreed to the affirmative procedure—and I know how rigid Governments of all parties have been in this matter—I take it. that the reason the affirmative procedure has been adopted is that it is intended to use the Bill to relieve certain persons of the taxation which they would otherwise attract. I should like to know whether that is the real reason why the Government have accepted this proposal. Will the Minister answer that?.
    Mr. Speaker: Only with the permission of the House.
    Mr. Younger: With the permission of the House, I am quite prepared to give the hon. Member the answer. As usual, he has totally misunderstood the purport of this Amendment. For all I know he may be prefectly correct in what he has said about one of the principles which distinguishes between the use of affirmative and negative resolutions, but it is certainly within my experience that the occasions upon which an affirmative resolution is used are by no means limited to cases where a charge is imposed. It is a matter partly of the likely importance of the Orders to be made and partly of the frequency with which they are likely to be made—whether it would be an intolerable burden upon the House always to have to consider affirmatively a large number of Orders in which it was unlikely that any objection would be taken. It is very largely a matter of sense of proportion and discretion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
    "(2) The provisions of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1946, specified in the first column of the Schedule (Provisions of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1946, repealed) to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the second column of that Schedule."
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    1862
    I have already mentioned this Amendment which is, as it were, consequential upon the new Schedule "A" which we are about to consider.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 22, at end add new Schedule "A":
    SUBSECTIONS (1) AND (2) OF SECTION ONE OF, AND THE SCHEDULE TO, THE DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) ACT, 1944. AS AMENDED

    A.—SUBSECTIONS (1) AND (2) OF SECTION ONE, AS AMENDED
    (1) This section shall apply to any organisation declared by Order in Council to be an organisation of which the United Kingdom or His Majesty's Government therein and one or more foreign sovereign Powers or the government or governments thereof are members.
    (2) His Majesty may by Order in Council—

    (a) provide that any organisation to which this section applies (hereinafter referred to as "the organisation") shall, to such extent as may be specified in the Order, have the immunities and privileges set out in Part I of the Schedule to this Act, and shall also have the legal capacities of a body corporate;

    (b) confer upon such number of officers of the organisation as may be specified in the Order, being the holders of such high offices in the organisation as may be specified in the Order, and upon such persons employed on missions on behalf of the organisation as may be so specified, and upon any persons who are representatives (whether of governments or not) on any organ of the organisation or are members, of any committee of the organisation or of an organ thereof, to such extent as may be so specified, the immunities and privileges set out in Part II of the Schedule to this Act;

    (c) confer upon such other classes of officers and servants of the organisation as may be specified in the Order, to such extent as may be so specified, the immunities and privileges set out in Part III of the Schedule to this Act;

    and Part IV of the Schedule to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of extending to the staffs of such representatives and members as aforesaid and to the families of officers of the organisation any immunities and privileges conferred on the representatives, members or officers under paragraph (b) of this subsection, except in so far as the operation of the said Part IV is excluded by the Order conferring the immunities and privileges:
    Provided that the Order in Council shall be so framed as to secure that there are not conferred on any person any immunities or privileges greater in extent than those which, at the time of the making of the Order, are required to be conferred on that person in order to give effect to any international agreement in that behalf and that no immunity

    1863
    or privilege is conferred upon any person as the representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or as a member of the staff of such a representative.

    B.—THE SCHEDULE, AS AMENDED

      PART I
      Immunities and privileges of the organisation
      1. Immunity from suit and legal process.
      2. The like inviolability of official archives and premises occupied as offices as is accorded in respect of the official archives and premises of an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty.
      3. The like exemption or relief from taxes and rates, other than taxes on the importation of goods, as is accorded to a foreign sovereign Power.
      4. Exemption from taxes on the importation of goods directly imported by the organisation for its official use in the United Kingdom or for exportation, or on the importation of any publications of the organisation directly imported by it, such exemption to be subject to compliance with such conditions as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may prescribe for the protection of the Revenue.
      5. Exemption from prohibitions and restrictions on importation or exportation in the case of goods directly imported or exported by the organisation for its official use and in the case of any publications of the organisation directly imported or exported by it.
      6. The right to avail itself, for telegraphic communication sent by it and containing only matter intended for publication by the press or for broadcasting (including communications addressed to or despatched from places outside the United Kingdom), of any reduced rates applicable for the corresponding service in the case of press telegrams.

      PART II
      Immunities and privileges of representatives, members of committees, high officers and persons on missions
      1. The like immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty.
      2. The like inviolability of residence as is accorded to such an envoy.
      3. The like exemption or relief from taxes as is accorded to such an envoy.

      PART III
      Immunities and privileges of other officers and servants
      1. Immunity from suit and legal process in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of official duties.
      2. Exemption from income tax in respect of emoluments received as an officer or servant of the organisation.

      PART IV
      Immunities and privileges of official staffs and of high officers' families
      1. Where any person is entitled to any such immunities and privileges as are mentioned
      1864
      in Part 11 of this Schedule as a representative on any organ of the organisation or a member of any committee of the organisation or of an organ thereof, his official staff accompanying him as such a representative or member shall also be entitled to those immunities and privileges to the same extent as the retinue of an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty is entitled to the immunities and privileges accorded to the envoy.
      2. Where any person is entitled to any such immunities and privileges as are mentioned in Part II of this Schedule as an officer of the organisation, that person's wife or husband and children under the age of twenty-one shall also be entitled to those immunities and privileges to the same extent as the wife or husband and children of an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty are entitled to the immunities and privileges accorded to the envoy.
      Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
      I have already explained that this Schedule consolidates the existing Schedule together with the Amendments proposed in this Bill, the altered parts being printed in heavy type. I think the House will find it convenient.
      Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think there are printing errors in this Schedule. I trust they will be corrected.
      Mr. Younger: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman could indicate what he means. I was not aware of any printing error but, of course, if there is one we will see that it is corrected.
      Mr. Manningham-Buller: In my copy of Part "B", at paragraph 6, it should be "communications" and not "communication." I think I am right in saying that, earlier, there are two words which should be printed in heavy type and which have not been so printed. No doubt that will be corrected.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: In line 22, after the Amendment last added, add new Schedule "B":

      PROVISIONS OF THE DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) ACT, 1946, REPEALED

      Provision

      Extent of Repeal

      Section one

      In subsection (1), the words from 'and accordingly' to the end of the subsection.

      Section two

      Paragraph (a).

      The Second Schedule

      The whole Schedule.

      Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
      The same considerations apply here.
      Question put, and agreed to.

  COAL MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 17th May.]
  [Major Milner in the Chair]

  COAL MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL

    Clause 3.— (PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF BUILDINGS COMPRISING DWELLING- HOUSES).
    3.50 p.m.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, to leave out from "Act" to "the" in line 34.
    We are moving this Amendment because of certain anxieties that we feel, and in order to give the Minister an opportunity of explaining the effect of the words proposed to be left out. We are somewhat concerned lest these words should give an opportunity of by-passing the provisions of the Measure, because it appears to be the case that the National Coal Board could come to an agreement with the parties interested which really need not be upon the lines of the Measure at all., At any rate, our anxiety is that it would make it possible for the National Coal Board to make an arrangement which, while satisfactory to the National Coal Board, might not be satisfactory to the individuals concerned.
    The Minister may reply that our anxieties are misplaced because we have not correctly read the effect of the words; or he may say that it is unlikely that the Coal Board would do that; or that it is unlikely that the individuals concerned would be prepared to agree to unfavourable arrangements. Earlier I raised a somewhat similar point with regard to the power of the Coal Board, and the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) kindly gave information from his experience of the practical questions of subsidence in his own area, and said that they were getting on very happily with the Coal Board. That information was naturally of interest, and I will admit that it gave me an enormous degree——
    Mr. Tom Brown: It was the benefit of experience.
    Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree; and I was just about to thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us the benefit of his experience upon that matter. I was hoping he might also be prepared to listen to an experience which I, perhaps, may be able to contribute on this subject, because although hon. Members from mining districts have great knowledge of the practical methods of subsidence, this is also relevant to this matter—the way in which the nationalised boards behave, and the conditions under which the nationalised boards act in regard to individuals.
    It does happen, hon. Members may be surprised to know, that I have been a member of a nationalised board; and I think that, perhaps, there are not many hon. Members who have been in that position. It is true it is one of the older nationalised boards—a board, in fact, set up by a Conservative Administration, which proves the fact that we on this side of the Committee are prepared to consider these exceptional expedients in the matters in which they are in the public interest. I refer, of course, to the British Broadcasting Corporation. I take the view—I do not know what the views of hon. Members may be—that the British Broadcasting Corporation is, broadly speaking, a very efficiently administered concern, and I do know that, in regard to all such matters, the greatest care is taken. One always had a sense, as a governor of that great Corporation, of the immense power of the Corporation in regard to individuals, and I believe it has always been the case that for that reason it has always taken the very greatest care.
    The point I want to make is that the public boards are entities of enormous power with regard to particular individuals; and, of course, the British Broadcasting Corporation is a mere midget in financial power compared with the National Coal Board. It has always been a matter of the greatest concern to the House of Commons to protect the individual in regard to what, I believe has been described as "over-mighty subjects"—which may be not at all a bad description of the National Coal Board. Therefore, I ask the Minister to tell us his view of this matter; whether he feels that our anxieties are misplaced; and

    1867
    whether, if he feels that they are not misplaced, he is prepared to accept this Amendment. At any rate, we should very much like to hear an explanation from him.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The right hon. Gentleman and the Committee understand that the repairs to be done under Clause 3 will not normally be done by the Coal Board itself. The Coal Board will make a payment. The object of the words which the Amendment proposes to leave out is to make it quite clear that if an owner prefers that the Board should carry out the repairs then he should be free to make an agreement with the Board to do so, rather than carry out the repairs himself and ask the Board to make a payment to him towards the cost which he incurs. This makes it quite plain that if an owner wanted to make that agreement, then no objection would arise.
    However, I think it is true that the words proposed to be left out may not be necessary to attain that end. It would be a perfectly proper arrangement, and without the words being there the owner and the Board could agree to do it. Moreover, I think it is theoretically possible, that with these words left in the Board might make some less proper arrangement to contract out, and therefore I do not really mind leaving them out if hon. Members opposite think it worth while leaving them out. There is not the slightest danger, in my opinion, that the Board will ever take that course. If it once started contracting out there would be such objections that the Board would have to give it up. I do not think these words matter either way, and I am quite prepared to leave them out.
    Mr. Brendan Bracken: We are grateful to the Minister for his condescending concession. Of course the Amendment is both necessary and wise. The right hon. Gentleman hinted that the Coal Board is capable of doing a side deal. He might also have said that it is capable of doing an "under the counter" deal. It is not quite good enough for the Committee to say, "Well, we are leaving the public to the mercy of the National Coal Board." The Minister has given us an assurance, which I gladly accept, that the Coal Board
    1868
    itself is not going to be responsible for repairing the damages caused by subsidence. I think that that is very good, if I may say so, because the Coal Board does not even now get down to its principal job, which is to produce coal instead of twists of tree trunks, slates and broken stones.
    On the undertaking given by the Minister we, being a democratic party on this side of the Committee—I think I may say so on behalf of my hon. Friends behind me—may be prepared to accept the Minister's offer. Of course, some of my hon. Friends may wish to make their contributions to this discussion. However, we are very grateful to the Minister for showing a certain reasonableness in these matters. So long as he recognises with us the limitations of the Coal Board—which he has done by saying that those gentlemen will not carry out the repairs—and who are we to disagree with him?—we are grateful to him. He may get better advice from my hon. Friends behind me, but, at any rate, so far as we are concerned, we shall not press this Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Bracken: I understood that the Minister had accepted our Amendment, so I did not think it was necessary to have it put from the Chair. We wanted to relieve you, Major Milner, of your very heavy labours.
    The Chairman: Well, I have now put it from the Chair and the Amendment has been negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5.—(NOTICE OF SUBSIDENCE DAMAGE AND REPAIRS TO BE GIVEN TO NATIONAL COAL BOARD.)
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, after "building" to insert:
    "or any other person who is liable to make good the subsidence damage in whole or in part."
    As the subsection stands, the duty of giving notice to the Coal Board falls on the owner alone and no notice given by anybody else would be valid. There

    1869
    may, of course, be cases where a dwelling is inhabited by a man who has a repairing lease, where the owner himself is not very closely concerned as to whether the Board discharge their obligations, especially if the lease has a long run, and in such cases the owner might fail to give the notice or fail to give it at the proper time. I think it is only reasonable that anyone who would bear part of the cost of the repairs should be able to give notice instead of the owner so that he may not suffer from the failure of the owner to give notice when notice is required. The Amendment is intended to bring that about, and I therefore hope the Committee will accept it.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I should like an assurance from the Minister that this Amendment will not in any way prejudice a case in which the owner or the person liable to make good the damage is not himself in possession of the house, and is therefore unable to give notice within the appropriate time. We may find a situation in which the person to be benefited by the Bill is kept out by the deliberate or careless action of the person who could give notice. I do not think his position is damaged by this Amendment, but I should like an assurance from the Government that they have not overlooked that possibility.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: No, I think that is all right. When we deal with the period within which notice must be given, I shall tell the Committee that we propose to have a hardship proviso, so that, if anybody does not get the notice in within the due time and if it can be shown that hardship thereby arises, we shall make allowance for that and the Coal Board will nevertheless grant the claim.
    Mr. Bracken: Today, the Minister is full of sweet reasonableness. We accept his proposal. We are very anxious to get on with public business—[Laughter.] We do not want this very unseemly hilarity from hon. Members opposite. Perhaps they would like to have a lot of Divisions, but I do not think that is necessary. The Minister has met us, and if his supporters would allow me to congratulate him without interruption it would be a help in getting on with our business. On the other hand, if these vacuous minds opposite will insist on interrupting, it will prolong
    1870
    our proceedings. We have very great responsibilities in the present Parliament, and we are not prepared to have any frivolous Debates or Divisions. Despite those interruptions, I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in following the advice given to him from this side of the Committee. There is no question that the mining Members have grossly neglected their duties, and we on this side have got to take their places.
    Sir H. Williams: Did I understand the Minister to say that he proposed to move an Amendment dealing with hardship? I do not see it on the Order Paper. I do not know whether it is something he proposes to do at a later stage.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said I would explain the intention of the regulations which would be made.
    Sir H. Williams: Surely regulations can be made only inside the scope of the statute. They cannot go outside that scope. Therefore, I am very doubtful whether it will be in order for the Minister to make regulations prescribing the treatment of the hardship which he has in mind. I am glad about his intention, but I think he is wrong legally, and I am very concerned about it. If I may use an analogy, about nine-tenths of the houses in my constituency were damaged during the war and a great many people, some absent on active service and some who did not quite understand, did not give notice. Since I got back into Parliament I have had at least 20 cases of people who had been refused war damage compensation because they did not give notice; they thought somebody else had done it. I am therefore very anxious that we should not have the same kind of problem in this Bill that I am already experiencing in my constituency under the War Damage Act. I hope the Minister will go a little further on the question of hardship.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am very much alive to this. I myself failed to give notice of bomb damage and lost £400, so I am not likely to forget it. I think I shall be able to show later that we shall be entirely within the scope of the Bill in doing what I intend.
    Mr. Bracken: I think the Minister has met the point made by my hon. Friend

    1871
    the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who is a man of little faith—and I do not blame him very much when he has to deal with the present Ministers. We shall expect to see the promise of the Minister enshrined in the regulations. It is on that undertaking that we do not oppose this Amendment. I am sure the Minister will produce a form of regulations which will be laid before the House and which we shall all be quite happy about.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, to leave out from "damage" to "and" in line 41 and to insert:
    "within such time not being less than six months after the occurrence of the damage as may be prescribed stating the date on which the damage occurred, the nature of such damage and the interest of the owner in such dwelling-house."
    The Committee will observe that the next Amendment on the Order Paper is put down as an alternative to this. It proposes the insertion in the same place of the words:
    "not being less than six months after the occurrence of the damage."
    If the Committee preferred that Amendment it would have the same effect as to the length of notice but would leave out the latter part of the Amendment I now move as to the details to be included.
    We now come to consider, for the first time, the provisions of the Bill relating to the notice which owners must give to the National Coal Board when their houses become affected by damage. As there is a further provision relating to notices in Clause 13, it is a little difficult to consider the two separately, especially since their engagement has now perhaps become a marriage by virtue of an Amendment tabled by the Minister.
    There are two purposes in giving notice. The first purpose is simply to inform the National Coal Board that a house has been affected by damage so that they may be aware that there is a claim, or a possible claim, on the way, and so that they may send their experts to inspect it and, if they are sufficiently provident and the circumstances commend it, to apply the proverbial stitch in time. The second purpose for which notice is required, is where an owner or the other person concerned
    1872
    makes up his mind, if he has two remedies open to him—that under this Bill and that under common law—to go under the Bill and notifies the Coal Board of his election.
    Those two notices serve two entirely different purposes, and at the outset one ought to make it clear that the notice to which this Clause specifically refers—that which warns the Coal Board that there is damage happening—ought in the interests of the owner and the Coal Board to be given as quickly as possible. Although we have provided in our Amendment that it was to be given within a period of six months, it would be the hope and aim of everybody to give notice as soon as possible, if need be on the very morning when one wakes up and sees that there is a crack in the wall.
    But the other notice which, by the Amendment, will be linked to this Clause is one which may require considerable investigation before it can be given. Hon. Members will recollect that at the moment a man may have, if his rights are such, a very much better remedy under common law—a remedy much more comprehensive and one which will give him damages in respect of things which are not covered by the Bill. He will have to make patient investigation, in many cases, with the help of his advisers, to find out whether he does in fact come into the alternative remedy under common law.
    Hon. Members with experience of mining districts will know that very often it will mean research into private Acts of Parliament which may be as much as 150 years' old. Copies of private Acts of Parliament are often difficult to come by, and when obtained it is not always easy to tell whether or not a person comes with the scope of them. Therefore, before deciding which of the two alternative remedies he will adopt, the owner may have to spend considerable time in research and in taking advice.
    We had, when the Amendment wag tabled, no notice that the Minister intended to propose that the notice which this Clause requires to be given would also bind the owner in his election, and make the election for him, so that from that moment onwards he has abandoned his greater rights under common law, if he had them. I hope that in considering

    1873
    the virtues of this Amendment, the Committee will bear in mind what may be hitched on to it at a later stage in our considerations when we deal with Clause 13.
    It occurred to us in framing the Amendment that it would serve a useful purpose if in the Clause of the Bill itself anyone who perhaps was not very well educated might see just what was required of him. It was for that reason that we framed the first Amendment which, if adopted, would show a man at once, when he sees damage to his house, that he has to give notice to the National Coal Board, and the notice must contain simple particulars, which will be quite sufficient to enable the Board to decide what action to take.
    We propose the Amendment with that purpose in view. If the view of the Committee on deliberation were that it would be better that these matters should be dealt with in the Regulations—I hope that the Committee will not take that view because I have a terror of pro formas set out in Schedules to Regulations—but if they do take that view, the alternative Amendment on the Order Paper would deal with it. We think that in view of the investigation that may have to take place, and the very difficult question which the owner may have to face in deciding which remedy will serve him best, he should have as much as six months in which to make up his mind.
    That is why we think it proper to ask the Committee in dealing with the Bill itself to say in advance of the Regulations that the period shall be at least six months. The right hon. Gentleman having drafted this remedy for people whose houses are damaged, will be anxious not in any way to detract from that benefit by excluding people because of inadvertence, or because they do not understand the position, or because of complicated research covering many years, even hundreds of years or more into the titles, which may be necessary. Therefore, I hope the Amendment will commend itself to the Committee.
    Colonel Clarke: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) has said in so ably moving this Amendment. I honestly cannot see why, at any rate, the minimum period necessary should not be
    1874
    put in the Bill in the first place, and why it should be left to Regulations. It seems to me that in the careful consideration which must have been given to the framing of this Bill this point must have been considered, and the Department must have made up their minds, or ought to have made up their minds, as to how much notice should be given. Therefore, why should it not be put in the Bill now and form part of the Act?
    I put myself in the position of someone who is asking for advice on the question of subsidence and what difference this Bill when passed will make to the house owner. I feel that if I have to go to people with this Act in my pocket, it will not be too easy to explain to them what is required, and if I have to have a lot of other papers, which I shall probably leave behind and have to remember what is in them, it will make it much more complicated and less convincing.
    4.15 p.m.
    Sir H. Williams: I find some difficulty in understanding the Amendment. I do not like to disagree with my hon. Friends; but let us assume that my house, one morning, falls down a coalmine [Laughter]. I have no doubt that would give great satisfaction to some hon. Members opposite. According to this Amendment, I have, apparently, to wait six months before I can give notice. What does that mean? I see that some of my hon. Friends are shaking their heads at me. I frankly do not quite understand the Amendment because it is curiously worded. It says: "Not being less than six months." That means that one has to wait six months before one can give notice, as I read it. I do not know whether that is the intention of the hon. Gentleman who proposed and supported the Amendment, but that is my reading of it. In that case, it seems to me that by inserting the Amendment we are going to deprive an aggrieved person of very considerable rights, and I am wondering whether there has not been some slip in the drafting of the Amendment.
    I have not had an opportunity of studying it before, but I think that it wants looking at again, because, as I see it, the Bill is more satisfactory as it stands than it would be if the Amendment were carried. In the Bill as it stands the Minister in due course has to produce Regulations,

    1875
    and if we or our successors are sufficiently rude about those Regulations they will be annulled, and the Government will have to produce another lot. It is very easy to produce new Regulations, but it is an awful job to get a Government to introduce a new Bill because of the elaborations involved. I think that any person who wishes to make a claim will be better off under the Bill than under the proposed Amendment.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The purpose of the Clause in the Bill is to preclude the National Coal Board from having to carry out repairs unless notice is given within a certain length of time. Everyone in all parts of the Committee will hope that notice will be given on the following day. The insertion of the Amendment will not prevent that. It will simply mean that the owner of property has to have at least six months in which he can put in notice before the Clause operates against him to deprive him of his rights against the National Coal Board.
    Sir H. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is a barrister and I am not; but that is not what the Amendment says.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is what the Bill says.
    Sir H. Williams: No; it is proposed to leave out the words:
    "…in such manner, within such time, and containing such particulars, as may be prescribed…"
    They are to be replaced by the words in the Amendment, which says that notice cannot be given until six months have gone by. That is what the words mean, and how I read them. I shall be glad to have an explanation. Obviously the hon. Member who has just given an explanation has not read the Amendment, and I hope that we shall have a further explanation. I know that this is giving great satisfaction to hon. Members opposite, but it is an illustration of the freedom of the party to which I belong which is denied to hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Bracken: I rise, not to support my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), but to disown him. He has criticised my hon. Friends who know a great deal about this Bill which is based, in part, on the Turner Committee's Report. My hon. Friend, whose
    1876
    bellicosity is beyond all praise, does not seem to have bothered himself with any diligent reading of the Amendment. I do not blame him for that, because no one can deal with the immense amount of paper that is put before us these days.
    This Amendment, although my hon. Friend may not think so, is based on very considerable experience. For instance, its foundations are derived from a Private Member's Bill, brought in by the present Ministers of Education and Agriculture. We acknowledge our debt to them, and we are sorry that they are not with us. We are sorry too that the Lord Advocate would like them to abandon the principles they believed in when they were in opposition; but do not let us drag in party politics.
    A very good point was made about the difficulties nowadays of trying to discover copies of old Acts of Parliament. It is one of the greatest tragedies in our time, in my biased judgment, that owing to the malice of the enemy an immense supply of old Acts disappeared.
    The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is getting very wide of the point before the Committee. If he applies himself to the Amendment, I am sure that we shall make the progress he so much desires.
    Mr. Bracken: Your kindness, Sir, in letting other Members refer to the lack of supplies of Acts of Parliament, surely entitles me to refer to it in passing and to commiserate with my hon. Friends? I consider that this Amendment ought to be incorporated in the Bill, instead of being left to regulations. Regulations come and go. They can be altered from time to time, but an Act of Parliament is the basis of the rights for any citizen. We have to put up, as you know to your cost, Major Milner, with nightly introductions of regulations, and your youthful zeal in the Chair seems to be disappearing as you have to sit every night listening to Prayers against regulations.
    I beg the Minister to include our Amendment in the Bill. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me to be an impossible task for an ordinary member of the public to discover what regulations have been introduced since the war. The regulations are numbered in their thousands. They mean nothing to the ordinary person as there is no index to

    1877
    them. I hope the Minister will not give us the assurance that he will introduce regulations to cover this point. We want to improve the Bill, and there is no doubt that it wants a lot of improvement, as the Minister of Education well knows. If the Minister is willing to include the Amendment, the courts can reasonably decide, whereas the courts have heard nothing about most of the regulations that pass through the House.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): Now that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) has slapped the hand of his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) we can leave them to fight out their little domestic quarrel between themselves. We are grateful, however, to the hon. Member for Croydon, East, for having put in our minds the idea that we might burrow under his house in order to secure a by-election. As for the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs), we have a good deal of sympathy for the views he put forward.
    I am glad that this Amendment has been put down, because it gives an opportunity to elucidate my right hon. Friend's intentions in regard to the regulations. The hon. Member was anxious that we should incorporate the Amendment in the Bill and not have regulations. If we accepted the Amendment, it would not necessarily mean the avoidance of regulations, because, as hon. Members who have read the Clause will know, there are other maters besides the time which may be prescribed. Therefore, there will have to be regulations, and it comes to a question of whether we should put just this little bit in the Bill.
    If Members give it second thoughts, I think they will agree that it is very much better for this to be included in the regulations. Before regulations are made they can be discussed with the National Property Owners' Association, the local authority associations, and the National Coal Board. Therefore, we can get general agreement on what is the right time to prescribe and also the manner and the form. Thereafter, when the regulations have been made, they can be discussed in the ordinary way. Let us assume it is found that some part of the regulations does not fit in. We can then
    1878
    come to the House and change the regulations. It means that we have that flexibility. If we put it in the Bill, it would mean that we should have to come before the House with a new Bill, which is a very different matter.
    I can imagine the situation arising where the local authority associations may want to make some alteration which is agreeable to the property owners, the National Coal Board and ourselves. We could then say that we would make another regulation to meet the point, which would obviate having to come to the House for further legislation. I think it is right that the intentions of the Government should be clearly defined at this stage. We feel that six months is about the right time people ought to be given as a maximum for notifying damage that has occurred before the passing of the Act. At the same time, it must be agreed that there may be hardship cases, although we cannot think of any such cases at the moment, where it would be wrong for a person to be outside the Bill merely because he had not come within the six month period. We propose to provide in the regulations for an extension in certain cases of that type. After the passing of the Bill, we think that one month is a reasonable time. We propose, therefore, to provide in the regulations that notice shall be given within a month.
    The hon. Member for Bromsgrove made the point that it is a good thing, in the interests of the owner of the property and of the National Coal Board, that they should both be on the job immediately after the damage has become apparent. That is a sensible point which does not need arguing. Therefore, if a month is given after the passing of the Act in the case of new damage, that should be a reasonable period. I think that I have met the point of this Amendment by the assurance I have given on behalf of my right hon. Friend. As I have said, there is great advantage in having flexibility whereby changes can be made as a result of practical experience. I hope we can leave the matter there.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Raikes: Before this interesting discussion is concluded, may I say that I am bound to admit that I find myself out of agreement with everybody who has spoken except,

    1879
    strange to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). It is all very well for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken to dissociate himself from what was said by the hon. Member for Croydon, East. The hon. Member for Croydon, East has convinced me—I was not convinced before, and I always believed in listening carefully to Debates whenever I can—that his criticism of the Amendment is a fair one.
    What the hon. Member says is that under this Amendment notice cannot be given until six months have expired. We have been told by my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members on this side of the House that that is not so. I know that that is not what they intend to do, but I am bound to read it into the Clause as it stands, for if it is inserted in the Clause the Amendment would make it read:
    "… the owner of a dwelling-house or part of the building has given notice in writing to the Board of the occurrence of damage within such time not being less than six months after the occurrence of the damage…"
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The subsection governing the wording of the Clause is in the negative. Therefore, all my hon. Friend has to do is to read it in the negative. He must read the substantive Clause, which begins,
    "The National Coal Board shall not be required to carry out any repairs. …"
    If he reads the whole of the Clause he will see the purpose of the Amendment.
    Mr. Raikes: I am still very suspicious of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, and I will insist in fighting the cause of the miners wherever I find it. I still repeat that as I read it, the Amendment is quite plain in that it lays down that notice cannot be given until six months have expired. However, I gather that the Government are not accepting the Amendment. Nevertheless I was bound to make this comment, and I will just add, that, although the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in his obviously honest desire that under the regulations he would meet the point which my hon. Friends have in mind, I think it would be rather a pity if some unfortunate person, who has to make a claim under this Clause, should be unable
    1880
    to discover what he has to do and will have to watch to see what further regulations are made. We are tending to make it more difficult for the ordinary layman ever to know what the law is. The law is sometimes an ass, but I am quite sure it is not as big an ass as some of my hon. Friends on this Amendment have tried to persuade me it is.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: There is a good deal that the Parliamentary Secretary said with which I would agree, but there are two points raised by the Amendment to which I want to refer. First of all, there is the question of the actual period of time. Although we have not any reason for saying that six months is the right period, there is the period of one month mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary——
    Sir H. Williams: Could my hon. Friend say whether six months is a minimum or a maximum?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: At the moment I am dealing with the point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary——
    Sir H. Williams: He did not deal with the point at all.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth:—and apparently I am drawing the fire of my hon. Friend on the flank.
    If the Parliamentary Secretary would consult with the War Damage Commission, who have been dealing for some time with claims of a not very dissimilar character, they will tell him that one month is much too short a time in which to expect owners of small houses to put in their claims. I know he has spoken about the hardship difficulties, but in the general run of cases one month is too little.
    Mr. Robens: May I say on that point that if, when we talk to the local authorities and the property owners, it is felt that six weeks or something like that is needed, we shall look at the matter. We are not bound by one month. I am thinking in terms of one month being a minimum, but we do not want to go too far along that road. It is very much less than the six months for old damage which we had in mind, but if it were found desirable to have a period of six weeks we should not be too rigid on that.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: We on this side of the Committee think that a period of

    1881
    six months is reasonable, but this matter may be settled after consultation with the authorities concerned.
    I want to say a word about this question of flexibility. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that flexibility is desirable in this connection, and he will see that in both our Amendments flexibility is provided for. The first Amendment refers to the power of the Minister to prescribe, and the second one deals only with this period of six months and still leaves the power as drafted in the Bill. We do not want to stop the Minister having that power, but as my hon. Friends have said, it is not really right to put this kind of power into a regulation at all.
    The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken of it as if everybody who was going to be affected by this Bill were a Member of this House and familiar with the regulations. He will agree that the people who will be directly affected by this Measure will be ignorant of the difference between an Act of Parliament and a regulation made under it. They will have to look up to see what their rights are. Very often they will be people, who have had no sort of warning of what is going to happen, and they will not have solicitors near them to advise them in the ordinary way. They will go to the Citizens' Advice Bureau or some other organisation in council rooms to get legal advice.
    Mr. Robens: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that from the practical point of view what will really happen when there is damage by subsidence is that the individual will go to the local colliery and there obtain the prescribed form, so that none of this problem will arise.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That might happen, but it is equally possible that he will walk round to the local town hall or somewhere of that sort. I know many cases in which a war damage claim was made at the local town hall, and has now been turned down on the grounds that it was not properly made to the right people at the right time. It is exactly that kind of case that I am anxious to safeguard by an Amendment of this sort. If it is quite plain that this statute does what is the minimum required in order to put oneself within the ambit of the statute, it will become known to a very
    1882
    much wider circle of people and it will be very much welcomed. For that reason I urge the Government between now and a later stage of the Bill to consider whether it is not necessary to put something specific into the Bill, which will be there permanently and will be known to those who may be affected.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: I personally prefer the wording of this Clause, which is fairly narrowly drawn. This Bill is not very extravagant, and in all cases of this type I imagine that people would prefer that as far as possible it should be left to the regulations. Those of us in this Committee who are interested in this matter will not rest with this proposal. We shall continually press for further improvement, and, obviously, it will assist us if we have as much as possible in the regulations. That is one point.
    The second point is with reference to the time. I see no difficulty. We are not dealing here with something which happens to a human being by way of physical disability. If a man ruptures himself you can make a guess at the age of the hernia. There are specified ways in which to do so. If there is a subsidence, who is to tell whether a man who has given notice not in six weeks but in seven weeks, is out of time by a week, or even by six months? Who can say: "You should have given notice earlier, because this damage occurred a long time ago"? We are making too much of this point. I hope that the Minister will agree to leave the Clause as it stands, especially as we have given him warning that we shall push the door which is now opening to us.
    Mr. Oliver: I hope the Minister will favourably consider the Amendment. It must not be forgotten that we are now dealing with a large number of people whose property is very small, and who will want to find as much as they can in the Act of Parliament. Anyone who has had to deal with this type of work will recognise that it is difficult for the average person to find what he wants in an Act of Parliament, and infinitely more difficult to find it in 2 regulation. For that reason I would advise that we should enable small property owners to find as much as possible in the Act itself. I agree, too, with the idea of limiting the claim to six months.
    Mr. Janner: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he think that the Amendment provides what he is asking for? Does he not think that hon. Members who have raised this point before were quite right in pointing out that under the Amendment we should not be entitled to give notice until six months have expired from the date of the occurrence? The Amendment says nothing at all about the extent of time that has to expire after the six months.
    Mr. Oliver: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The Amendment makes it reasonably clear that we have up to six months to make the claim. If the matter should be in doubt, we can easily have the point adjusted. The suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary that the time after the passing of the Bill should be limited to one month is unreasonably short. There might be no doubt in respect of owner-occupiers. If they see a crack they will give notice, but those who are to benefit from the Bill are not only owner-occupiers. There may be fissures and cracks in a building, but unless they incommode the tenant he may not give notice to his landlord in sufficient time to enable the landlord to make a proper claim against the National Coal Board. That happens frequently. It is not something that we have not experienced in the past. Immediately a tenant is incommoded he makes a complaint to the landlord, who then passes it to the proper quarter. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter It would be of considerable help to occupiers of small property if he were to adopt the Amendment.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Bracken: There are divisions of opinion on both sides of the Committee. It is a very delicate Parliamentary situation. Hon. Members on the Government side obviously disagree with the Minister. Our consistent follower from Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) for the first time finds himself in opposition to the official Conservative Party policy. I was greatly struck by the speech made by the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). He rightly says that the landlord must be taken care of in this matter because he is usually a small man, since miners buy their own houses. Anyone, whether landlord or tenant, who is connected with property
    1884
    may find himself up against the National Coal Board in another capacity. When hon. Gentlemen opposite are so silent this afternoon I wonder why. Why do they not, from their experience, tell the Committee that the National Coal Board may now be judge and jury too, in this matter?
    The National Coal Board, through nationalisation, has taken on so much property in the mining areas that if a man's house is damaged he may find himself in a position to put in a claim not to the National Coal Board as to an independent authority but to the Coal Board acting as a landlord, and a grasping one at that. I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider that point. As the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) knows, there are——
    Mr. D. J. Williams: Is the right hon. Member suggesting that if a tenant who was a miner working for the National Coal Board made application for compensation for structural damage the National Coal Board would victimise that man in his employment?
    Mr. Bracken: I am not suggesting victimisation, but I am suggesting that the whole life of England has been built up upon the principle of the independent tribunal judging between one party and another. I prefer the courts to the Coal Board. This is a serious matter. The National Coal Board is such an immense landlord that they can judge an unfortunate tenant's claim, a miner who had a little savings——
    Mr. Robens: With great respect, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what this has to do with six months being the time in which to notify the damage?
    Mr. Bracken: The Parliamentary Secretary really ought to try to restrain himself; I know it is very difficult. The Coal Board, being the landlord, can offer infinite delay if they wish to do so within the six months. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always talking about unscrupulous landlords. I object to the National Coal Board being in any way the arbitrator——
    Mr. Oliver: Will the right hon. Gentleman read Clause 12?
    Mr. Bracken: I have done so, with the greatest possible disappointment. I beg the

    1885
    hon. Member for Ilkeston to support me in saying that the Coal Board must not become the judge in its own cause. The Minister has given us an assurance. He has told us that he is willing to consult the local authorities, and the property owners' association. That sounds fine, but, speaking for the party to which I belong, I am not at all sure that we should be satisfied that the ordinary small householder who has suffered damage from subsidence should depend upon the property owners' association or the local authority. I am not prepared to admit that for a moment. One of the characteristics of our country is that we have employers' associations and trade unions too well organised. I want to see the small man, the miner who is prudent and who has put his savings into a house, protected by a judge rather than by a property owners' association, or local authorities either.
    The question of the limitation of the period of claim has not been properly discussed in the Committee. We have had a confession from the Minister, a surprising confession, that he lost £400 by a failure to put in his war damage claim He is surrounded by secretaries, menials and lawyers, all the sort of people who serve opulent men, and if he did not remember to put in his claim how can we expect the humble miner, who has to work very hard all day, to do so? [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not jeer at the miners. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have risen on their shoulders to their present comfortable jobs. I beg the Minister to consider this. His confession was extremely engaging. He is almost a political Buchmanite. He neglected to claim for damage to his house in war merely because he did not apparently bother on the day, even though he could have done so.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I was out of the country on public service and the date went by.
    Mr. Bracken: The right hon. Gentleman really must not talk like that. This has gone on for four years. Fortunately or unfortunately for the country, the right hon. Gentleman has not been out of the country for four years; he has had plenty of time to put in his claim. It is no use his saying that he was attending a meeting of the United Nations.
    1886
    I feel that a measure of compromise could be reached today, and I am very anxious to achieve a compromise because my war-time colleague, that admirable and right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary is away, probably having a well deserved rest, and, therefore, I do not particularly want to see a Division because I am afraid that a large number of hon. Gentleman opposite would follow my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) through the Lobby. It would, indeed, be a peculiar development in politics if the hon. Member for Croydon, East, were to defeat the Government with the aid of Socialist Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "It would."] It might easily happen if it were not for the restraint of the right hon. Gentleman who is now addressing the Committee.
    I am not the least bit satisfied at the Minister's decision not to accept our Amendment and to force us to rely on regulations, for there are more regulations in this country at present than there is confetti, and it is very hard for anybody to catch up on, or to index the regulations. Sometimes we ought to be a Council of State, and I suppose that the time is now. I do not want to split the party opposite or to find the hon. Member for Ilkeston "whipping" for the hon. Member for Croydon, East, so my advice to my hon. Friends—I beg them to remember that they need not follow it, but as I have said before, we are a democratic party—is, on the whole, to accept the meagre, grudging concession given us by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Mainwaring: My right hon Friend said that consultations would take place with local authorities and property owners' associations before the regulations were finally drafted. Local authorities in general have no wisdom in this matter. Only local authorities which have had experience of subsidence in mining districts can offer the Minister any advice. Property owners generally are also not in a position to advise him. He has left out one organisation which above all others in the country could advise him, and that is the National Union of Mineworkers. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are weeping with sympathy for the miners. All right. Let the miners judge for themselves. Let

    1887
    advice be given by the miners' organisation.
    Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman should not wag his finger at us by way of rebuke. He must know that it is deliberate Government policy altogether to exclude from counsel, Communists like Mr. Horner.
    Mr. Robens: Clearly, what we want to do in formulating these regulations is to have the combined experience of all those who have any knowledge at all about this problem, and if consultation with the National Union of Mineworkers would help we shall be very glad to consult them as well.
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: There is a point of substance about the Amendment. It is concerned not with the form in which the Amendment stands but with what the Amendment does The Amendment seeks to place a limit, and to make that limit known, in which applications in respect of damage can be made. The time limit ought to be made clear. The Government ought to make up their mind what time is reasonable and let that time be known. Who can determine what a hard case is? The only person who could determine it would be the Minister who is making the regulations. That should not be left to him. It is a matter for the House of Commons to endorse what the reasonable time should be. The Government ought to put it in the Bill and it should not be left to regulations. If it were put in the Bill everyone would know what the law is.
    I agree fully with the speech of the non. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) and with the object of the Amendment in so far as it seeks to place a time limit in the Bill itself and not leave it to regulations, but I fail to see that the Amendment achieves that object. I do not know what the time limit should he. If it is six months it should be stated as six months instead of "not less than six months." Whatever it is, let the Government make up their minds about it and put it in the Bill. The Government should reconsider the Clause and amend it at a later stage.
    Mr. Bracken: The suggestion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin
    1888
    Morris) is well worth while accepting. Were we granted the opportunity of consulting the hon. and learned Gentleman we should certainly have improved our Amendment. I must again make the confession that our Amendment is largely taken from a Bill drafted by the present Ministers of Agriculture and Education. They are to blame for any incoherence in it. Now we have with us an eminent lawyer who has been an ornament to the Bench and has come back to the House of Commons to help us. I suggest to the Minister that if he will consult the hon. and learned Gentleman, who represents the Liberal Party with such solitary distinction and other hon. Members on this side of the Committee who take such a great interest in the Bill, we shall have an opportunity to get something more satisfactory on the Report stage. It is obvious that the Minister is not quite satisfied with this form of words and neither is the hon. Member for Ilkeston.
    We have a great deal of public business to discharge and I am always anxious to speed up the business of this House. [Laughter.] It is not right to say that this hilarity is out of order, but it is an embarrassment to the Government. If the Minister would consult the hon. and learned Gentleman who leads and follows the Liberal Party today and my hon. Friends who are responsible for the Amendment, we should then get a form of words which should please everyone, including the miners, who are so badly represented in the Committee today.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Janner: It is highly important that we should consider this matter in its full light. First, the Amendment is obvious nonsense because, if what the right hon. Gentleman says he intended to do is correct, the Amendment does precisely nothing towards it. All it does is to ask that there should be a stipulation as to the time when the notice shall be presented. It does not say anything about the time to elapse subsequent to the giving of that notice.
    I am deeply concerned about this matter because, in my experience, I have come across questions relating not only to subsidence but to the time involved in the presentation of a claim. While I agree, up to a point, with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member

    1889
    for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), I would go a step further and say that we on this side of the Committee, who really consider the miners—all the nonsense spoken on the other side has been a red-herring across the track——
    Mr. Bracken: Oh!
    Mr. Janner: —and the right hon. Gentleman knows it very well. He has utilised the Amendment for trying to get a certain amount of advantage in relation to the mining population, and he knows very well it has nothing to do with the problem. The position is that people come too late to make their claims and regulations, therefore, should be made in such a way as not only to place a limit in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen, but to make a general allowance in respect of cases where people have not understood the position and, consequently, have not been able to make their claims. That is why we have had all this difficulty with the war damage claims. It is not because the regulations have not been clear or because the law has not been clear. In fact, the Government have been particularly generous about the extension of time——
    Sir H. Williams: Not generous enough for the Minister.
    Mr. Janner: The Government have made considerable concessions in regard to time so far as the regulations are concerned, but we have to go further. From our own experience in dealing with these matters, we know that people are not aware of the regulations as to time, no matter how strongly they may be made or how clearly they may be stated in an Act of Parliament——
    Mr. Bracken: Who are "we"?
    Mr. Janner: I am talking about the people in the profession who are daily handling cases for those concerned.
    Mr. Bracken: Lawyers?
    Mr. Janner: We know that many people who wish to make a claim are misled because they are ignorant of the time within which that claim has to be made.
    Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman is making a monstrous attack on the legal
    1890
    profession and is also assuming that many people in this country have money enough to employ a lawyer. I am sure they have not.
    Mr. Janner: If the right hon. Gentleman would only listen, and would not be so obsessed with the idea of making—I almost used a harsh word but I would not like to do that—political points out of situations which do not call for them, he would realise that what I am saying probably meets what he has in mind. I suggest that the Government should take into consideration the fact that people, in the main, are not aware of the dates within which these applications have to be made and, that consequently, in addition to fixing a date, they should leave a loophole for those who still want to make their claims.
    There is another point which has to be taken into consideration, and this was made by the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). The tenant-owner is defined in the Bill and the term "owner" refers to a freeholder. It may well be, and it is frequently the case, that the freeholder does not live even within the vicinity of the house he owns. In those circumstances he might not be aware of the fact that damage has occurred because the tenant may not have given him that information. Consequently, he must be given a reasonable opportunity to inspect the place, even though he does not know that damage has occurred, and a reasonable time within which to make his claim.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move, in page 5, line 2, to leave out "fifty," and to insert fifty-one."
    This Bill confers upon owners of property and other persons interested in property the right to compensation in the event of subsidence damage, not merely from the commencement of this Bill but from 1st January, 1947. It follows that whether a person between 1st January, 1947, and the present time has or has not carried out repairs to that damage, no differentiation ought to be made, otherwise one would be penalising the owners who had repaired subsidence damage which had occurred since 1st January, 1947, but before this Bill was introduced into this House.

    1891
    It is obvious, however, that there must be some limit placed, some date mentioned, after which a person is not entitled to repair the damage and then come afterwards to the Coal Board and ask them to pay the Bill for the repairs. If such a date were not specified in the Bill, the road would be opened to all sorts of malpractices. A person might carry out repairs which were not entirely necessitated by the subsidence damage, and it would then be difficult for the National Coal Board to show that only a part of the expenditure thus incurred was attributable to the subsidence damage.
    The question, however, to which I would ask the Committee to direct attention is whether the date written into this Subsection is a reasonable date to specify after which a person cannot claim the reimbursement of expenditure upon repairs of which he had not previously notified the National Coal Board. The date must presumably be one after which any person likely to be affected by subsidence damage ought to be aware of the provisions of this Bill. That, surely, is the consideration which the Committee must have in mind: is this date a date by which time anyone, however humble, in a mining area, in an area liable to subsidence, ought reasonably to be aware of his rights under this Bill?
    I submit there is no justification which can be produced for the date, 1st May, 1950. It is not the date upon which the contents of this Bill first became known, for it was published on 5th April. Nor is it, on the other hand, the date of the commencement of the Act, the date when the Bill becomes law. So that those two dates, for each of which some argument might have been advanced, have not been adopted by the Government. They have instead, for reasons which no doubt the Minister will explain, written into the Bill the date 1st May.
    If the Bill was published only on 5th April we are, by leaving the date of 1st May in the subsection, implying that within 25 days from the publication of a Bill its contents ought to be known to persons who are interested throughout the country. That assumption is not borne out by experience. I have known cases of Bills which were before the House whose effect, not upon humble individuals,
    1892
    but upon local authorities, has not come to the understanding of those local authorities until after the Bills had passed into law. A fortiori we ought not to expect individual citizens to familiarise themselves with the effects of legislation while it is passing through Parliament within 25 days of the day on which it is published.
    Today is only 23rd May and I would be prepared to wager that there are literally thousands of persons in the mining areas who on 23rd May—that is, 23 days after the date specified in the Clause—are still unaware of their duties, as well as their rights, under the Bill. There is also the possibility to be considered that the Clause may not become law. After all, what we have before us is not an Act of Parliament—it is a Bill. What right have we to expect that persons will assume that the Clause will become a Section of an Act and will take action in the interim before it becomes law?
    There is a further special case to which I wish to refer. The Minister may say that if a person finds subsidence damage occurring, shall we say, tomorrow to his house, he will at least have heard that there is some such Measure in contemplation and will not rush ahead and get a local builder to repair it and afterwards wonder what to do with the account. Let us, suppose, however, that subsidence damage occurred six months, a year, or even 18 months ago, that the person affected made arrangements with a local builder for the time when that builder was able to get down to the job of effecting the repairs, and that in fact the repairs were only started on 2nd May. As the Clause stands, that builder's account will not be admissible.
    I submit, therefore, that whatever date the Committee decide upon or the House at a later stage decides to write into the Clause, 1st May is an unreasonably early date. I am not indissolubly wedded to the date proposed by the Amendment of 1st May, 1951, which I have put forward merely to enable me to raise the whole question. If the Minister suggests an earlier date than mine but one which is such as to give reasonable opportunity for the public to have familiarised themselves with the provisions of the Bill, I do not think that anyone would quarrel.
    But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not shelter behind any hardship

    1893
    proviso in the regulations which he proposes to make. We are glad to learn that in those regulations there will be the means of dealing with exceptional cases, of cases where for special reasons the persons concerned have not been able to fulfil the normal requirements. My point against the existing date, however, would not be met by any hardship escape Clause, because my contention is that the provision itself is unreasonable. It is no use, therefore, for the Minister to say, "Yes, we admit that it is unreasonable but there will be a hardship Clause which will enable us to overcome it. "For these reasons I hope that the Minister will recognise that the existing date is unreasonably early and will substitute for it a later date.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Mainwaring: I think that we on this side of the Committee should press for some other date than 1st May of the present year. I must confess that I am in some doubt about the terms of the Amendment and the remarks of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in moving it, because as I understand subsection (1) it is there laid down that owners of dwelling-houses which are damaged by subsidence must give notice to the Coal Board—that is to say, when the Bill has become an Act. It seems logical, therefore, that the owner of a dwelling-house cannot possibly make good the damage to his premises without the consent of the Coal Board. The whole matter is accordingly in the hands of the Coal Board from the time when notice is given. For this reason it seems to me that the position as it was referred to by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, is somewhat different.
    Last Sunday, I must confess, it became necessary for me to withdraw some remarks which I made on Second Reading, when I said that to my knowledge there were no houses in my constituency which would be affected by the Bill. Unfortunately, in the preceding week a whole row of houses became badly affected, and to such varying degrees that I question very much whether anyone can say at present when all the damage will become apparent in every individual case. In two of the houses the front walls have collapsed completely; others are damaged in
    1894
    varying degrees, down to those which are affected in only infinitesimal proportions. As I understand the position, however, the owners, although they may give notice, cannot possibly make good the damage unless they are so instructed by the Coal Board.
    Mr. Bracken: They are their landlords.
    Mr. Mainwaring: The whole problem is that the consent of the Board is necessary before the owners of individual properties can get the repairs effected.
    Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) has treated the Committee very well. He made a confession that last Sunday he had to withdraw a statement which he made during our earlier discussions that subsidence could not quickly occur. It is not often that I can claim to be a prophet, and generally I accept the view of the late Lord Balfour that one cannot argue with prophets but can only disbelieve them. On this occasion, however, I did tell the hon. Gentleman that no man can foretell the dangers of subsidence. Subsidence, after all, is a cruel act of nature, and as I reminded the Committee last week, in mines which are only six months old and which are surrounded by new houses, very considerable subsidence is likely to occur. This is a matter of the highest possible consequence, not only to the constituents of the hon. Gentleman but, indeed, to any hon. Member who represents a mining constituency.
    I feel that we ought to be able to come to some sort of agreement about this. I know the tragedies of subsidence as well as any hon. Gentleman opposite knows them. I consider also that their consequences are incalculable. Therefore, I am not prepared for one moment to accept the view that our Amendment is not one that we should ask the Government to accept; but I am not saying that the wording is perfect and, above all, I am not making this a matter of party politics.
    There are hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who understand this problem, and the Minister would do well to consult with them. If he does not like accepting the Amendment in its present form we are quite willing to lend him aid and experience to compose a better

    1895
    form of words, but I do not think that the Committee should part from the Bill without making it absolutely clear to the Minister that, so far, he has shown no proper recognition of the tremendous tragedy of subsidence—none whatever.
    As far as the idea of giving notice in these matters is concerned—the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) knows this—how can one give notice? The other day we were afflicted by a fierce thunderstorm, and I dare say that some houses in mining areas were affected. If a crack appeared in the walls due to nature acting in another callous form, I suppose that the owner might go to the Coal Board and say, "I have had a great split in my wall; it must be due to subsidence." But the right hon. Gentleman would be equally entitled to say, "This is due to a thunderstorm."
    We ought to get together on this Amendment. I think that both sides of the Committee could draft something of value and I invite hon. Members opposite, who are so silent about mining matters when their own Government are in office and so vocal when they are in Opposition, to agree with us. I see the Patronage Secretary is present. Having worked with him during the war, I can guarantee that he will inflict no penalities, provided that we meet privately. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party are absent, but the Conservative Party should join with hon. Members opposite and follow the advice given by the hon. Member for Rhondda East.
    Let me tell you, Sir Charles, that a great pleasure awaits the Committee if your eye is benign enough to fall on the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) who knows a great deal about the legal and other aspects of this question and hon. Members opposite, including the Minister, need a lot of instruction.
    Mr. T. Brown: It is manifestly unfair for the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) to accuse the Minister of not being concerned about damage and inconvenience experienced in mining districts. The fact that this Bill is before the Committee now is conclusive evidence that not only the Minister, but the Government and hon. Members on this side of the
    1896
    Committee, are concerned about it being remedied. I think it manifestly unfair that the right hon. Gentleman should give expression to that statement. As far as I have heard this Debate, there appears to be an attempt by the Opposition to prevent this Bill reaching the Statute Book. I am very much concerned about this Bill reaching the Statute Book, but at the speed with which we are travelling it will not do so. I am particularly anxious that every consideration should be given to the Amendments, from whatever quarter they come. I have learned to be patient in that direction, but I think it unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to accuse the Minister of not being concerned about subsidence.
    Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member really ought not to misinterpret me. I complained about the Minister's carelessness and based my complaint on his own confession that £400 mattered nothing to him. It does matter a lot to the humble constituents of hon. Members opposite.
    Sir Patrick Spens: If I may keep strictly to the Amendment before the House, the fact that it takes the form it does shows that I, at least, did not understand the subsection when the Amendment was put down. I am not at all sure that I understand it now. I think it goes back to Clause 3, because what it is dealing with is repairs carried out by some person other than the owner of the House. In order that there may be any payment for repairs the owner of the house has to give 14 days' notice before repairs are carried out. As far as the operation of the Clause is concerned after the Bill becomes an Act, it seems perfectly workable. That is to say, once it has become law and everyone is supposed to know what the law is, no repairs are to be done by any person and the owner does not accept payments unless he has given the Coal Board 14 days' notice and they have had a chance of inspection.
    That is all right, but what is happening at the moment? If repairs are made after 1st May and before 23rd May—today—by some other person, the owner will find himself unable to get one penny for those repairs, unless he gave 14 days' prior notice under a Clause in a Bill which is not yet law. If that is the right construction of this Clause, it is something which this House has never done in the

    1897
    whole of its history. It is expecting people to comply with a Clause in a Bill while it is still a Bill, if they are to get a benefit. That seems such a preposterous interpretation to put on a Clause that I hope and trust I am utterly and entirely wrong and I should be delighted to be told by the Minister that I have hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely.
    On the other hand, I am rather suspicious that I have got hold of the right end and that while it will be all right for people who make repairs well in the future, when they know what the law is and have an opportunity under the law of giving 14 days' notice, there will be a substantial class who are carrying out repairs at present who will find that they ought to have given 14 days' notice under a Bill before it was law. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that, to inquire and to make certain that, as at present worded, the Clause will not include a lot of people who are now making repairs.
    Mr. David Thomas: I hope the Minister will give every consideration to this Amendment because, as I understand it, if the word "fifty" remains part of the Clause many property owners will be deprived of compensation in respect of subsidence damage occurring after 1st January, 1947. Take the case where repairs commenced on 23rd April. The owner can only claim the cost of repairs from 23rd April to 1st May. This Bill was ordered to be printed on 3rd April. It was not till some days after that the Bill appeared and many property owners whose property had been damaged did not know that 1st May, 1950, was the date.
    I am not tied down to a particular date, but 1951 is in the Amendment and there might be some properties where the contractors commenced a job on 3rd May or afterwards and then went on to other jobs, and it might be 31st May, 1951, before the whole job is completed. I understand that the owner in such a case would be deprived of all compensation. I believe that the Minister will give every consideration to this matter and will alter the date to make it a reasonable period after 1st May, 1950. The National Coal Board ought to know if jobs are going on now and if they are completed, and no notice has been given, say by November next, we want all those property owners
    1898
    to have the benefit of the Bill, but as the Clause is worded I fear that many a property owner will be deprived of his rights.
    I plead with the Minister to alter the date, not necessarily to 1st May, 1951, but to a reasonable date beyond 1st May, 1950, in order to cover jobs which are already in operation in which no prior notice was given. As the Bill stands it is impossible for an owner on whose property work started on 27th April to get more than £2 or £3 compensation covering the work performed by the contractor from 27th April to 1st May. Such an owner cannot give 14 days' notice prior to 1st May or until 14th May, and there is a grave danger, unless a change is made in this date, of depriving many property owners of the compensation to which they are entitled.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The mover of the Amendment stated the intention of the Clause with great clarity. It is to prevent dishonest persons, immediately on the publication of the Bill, from having repairs and decorations done to their houses and making a claim on the Coal Board, although the dilapidation which they have repaired or redecorated has been in no way due to subsidence. If that happened it would be very difficult for the Coal Board to determine, after the repairs and decorating had been done, whether it was due to subsidence or not. Therefore, it seemed desirable, in order to prevent dishonest claims by ill-intentioned persons against the Coal Board, which would have no justification under the Bill, from being made and met by the Coal Board.
    That leads us to the conclusion that there must be a date after which notice must be given. I would say that the drafting of the Clause is perfectly all right and that is why those who seek to make this Amendment suggest only a change of date and not one of wording. To put 1st May, 1951, as the date would really open wide the door to fraud and evasion. We should find a flood of decorating work being done, and the Coal Board would be in a hopeless position because they would have no right to refuse the claims and they could not check whether subsidence had been the cause or not.
    Is 1st May, 1950, the right date? Would it be grossly unjust to adhere to

    1899
    it? We took every step we could to make this provision known in advance. When the Bill was published I had a Press conference; I consulted the Lobby correspondents, who secured wide publicity on this point both in the national and local Press. We also had two broadcasts made I do not say that everybody concerned knew about the Bill and about this Clause, but it is a fact that we have already had 487 claims put in—64 from Northumberland and Cumberland, 140 from the North-Eastern Division and Yorkshire, 48 from the North-Western Division, etc.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Are those claims or notices under this Clause?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: They are notices. The point I am seeking to make is that the Bill is beginning to be known. It has been strongly put by some of my hon. Friends that to adhere the 1st May would involve some substantive hardship or injustice to people who really have not known about this provision. While I cannot accept 1st May, 1951, as the date I am prepared to look at this point again, to consult the Coal Board, local authorities and other people, and before the Report stage, to suggest some alternative date which may be a little later than 1st May, 1950, but not very much later.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman's concluding words will go a long way towards placating hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, but there is one point I should like to take up. He has said that we have taken no exception to the drafting of the subsection as it stands. My own view is that an alteration might be made in the drafting which would assist the Minister in the very purpose he has in view. As the subsection now stands the notice has to be given:
    "in respect of any repairs which have been carried out by any other person to any such dwelling-house … after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty, …"
    It is these words that create the kind of difficulty to which my hon. Friend referred, and which have been mentioned by an hon. Member opposite. If the notice has to be given not in respect of repairs carried out after that day but about repairs in respect of damage
    1900
    occurring after that day it would go some way towards meeting the difficulty.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The Amendment before the Committee is simply to leave out "fifty," and to insert "fifty-one."
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: With great respect, Sir Charles, I am addressing myself precisely to that point.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Minister gave an assurance that he would look into the matter before Report stage and put down an Amendment. I gather that the hon. Member is trying to press an Amendment on the Minister now.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In all parts of the Committee exception has been taken to 1st May, 1950, for reasons which have been cited by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—namely, that to have that date in the Bill will mean a lot of hard cases in which it has been physically impossible for the individual affected to give the requisite notice. The point I am making is that that difficulty arises by reason of the fact that we are dealing with notice of the carrying out of repairs, and my argument is that if the Clause dealt with notice as to the damage, in other words, if the crucial date was not in respect of the date of commencement of repairs but in respect of the damage giving rise to the repairs, this particular kind of difficulty would not arise.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is my point. That is not now in the Clause.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I respectfully submit that my argument is directly to the point. The suggested alteration in the date is to meet a particular kind of hardship when hardship arises by reason of the drafting of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that no question had arisen as to the drafting of the Clause hitherto, and assuming that arguments on that point would be in order, I was pointing out that a question does arise on drafting which has given rise to the difficulty.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think that is a matter to raise on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I have perhaps made my point sufficiently.
    Mr. Bracken: My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) put his point extremely well, but, if I may say so most respectfully, I agree with you, Sir Charles, that as the Minister has admitted that the drafting of this Clause is imperfect, it ought to be withdrawn. With the aid of the Opposition I dare say we can probably find a form of words that will meet the views of Members on both sides of the Committee. You know from personal experience how anxious we are to get on with business. The Patronage Secretary is shaking his head.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): Yes, I have a good right to, have I not?
    Mr. Bracken: By not forcing Divisions we are sparing a lot of hon. Members from the physical breakdowns which would otherwise be caused by the Patronage Secretary's brutality. But do not let us become involved in controversies between old colleagues. I suggest that in view of the undertaking given in such robust language by the Minister my hon. Friends can withdraw the Amendment. We can certainly find an alternative form of words, which cannot be worse than the words in the Bill. We shall probably be able to provide the miners who own their small homes with some form of just compensation.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. Is there really anything at the moment before the Committee, except the date?
    Mr. Bracken: As you know, Sir Charles, at all times the unfortunate occupant of the Chair sees something before him. The hon. Member rarely attends our discussions, and is always a constant interruptor.
    Mr. Silverman: May I have a Ruling, Sir Charles, to the point of order I submitted?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I agree that the matter before the Committee is to leave out "fifty," and insert "fifty-one."
    Mr. Silverman: Does it therefore follow that comments on any other point or person are out of order at the moment?
    The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, that was what I was trying to indicate.
    Mr. Bracken: Considering the rebuke delivered to the hon. Gentleman I think we had better get on with the business and withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Powell: In view of the undertaking by the Minister, which has relieved the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I would ask the Minister to extend his consideration to the wording of the subsection as a whole and not to be misled by the statistics which he quoted of notices given, which I think are irrelevant to the point at issue here; nor to overestimate the degree to which the provisions of this Bill have yet become known.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I beg to move, in page 5, line 2, to leave out from "unless" to "has," in line 3, and to insert, "that person."
    This Amendment deals with the same point that was dealt with in the Amendment accepted by the Committee in Clause 5, page 4, line 38, but it is in a different context. The subsection provides that the Board:
    "shall not be required to make any payment under this Act in respect of any repairs which have been carried out by any other person … after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty,"
    unless the owner of the building has given notice to the Board. If the owner has not carried out the repairs himself, if they have been carried out by the tenant who holds a repairing lease—that was the case I was speaking on in the other Amendment—the owner may not have troubled to give the appropriate notice. We think it fairer that the person who will suffer from the failure to give notice should be in a position to give the notice himself, and the Amendment will have that effect.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Powell: There is one point I wish to raise before we leave this Clause, and upon which I would ask the Minister for guidance. It relates to subsection (1) and it is the point which I think was worrying the hon. Member for Rhondda, East

    1903
    (Mr. Mainwaring). In order to obtain compensation the owner or other person interested is required to give notice in writing to the Board of the occurrence of the damage within a specified time. If the regulations merely say within x months of the occurrence of the damage, then obviously, unless that period is over three years in length, persons owning property to which damage occurred between 1st January, 1947, and the present time will be automatically excluded, although the object of the Bill is to bring them within the scope of compensation.
    I take it, therefore, that the Regulations will prescribe that notice must be given either within x months of the commencement of this Act, or within x months of the occurrence of the damage, whichever is the later time; but I should be glad to have an assurance from the Minister that that point has been taken.
    Sir H. Williams: There are three points I wish to raise. The first words of this Clause state:
    "the National Coal Board shall not be required. …"
    that is to say, the owner or tenant cannot compel them to do certain things, but the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether they may within their statutory powers demand the Board to make ex gratia payments if by any reason the question of hardship arises. I am not quite clear whether the Board have the power to make payments. I know they have not much money with which to do it, but I should be glad to know whether they have the power.
    The last line on page 4 refers to any repairs:
    "which have been carried out by any other person."
    I have often wondered what those words mean. If I cause alterations to be made to a house, are they carried out by me or by the builder to whom I entrust the contract? Are they carried out in accordance with my instructions, or actually by me? I am wondering what is the correct interpretation of that, because if there is any chance of a misunderstanding it ought to be cleared up on Report stage. It is purely a question of drafting, but it struck me on reading the Clause that there might be a risk of a misunderstanding in the future.
    1904
    The third point is the proviso to subsection (2), a very important and legitimate proviso:
    "Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any works urgently required in consequence. …"
    etc. Who is the judge of "urgently"? On reading through the Bill I do not see anybody who is to decide whether a person has done something improper in deciding that he must undertake urgent repairs. Suppose that later on the Coal Board refused to pay, has he any redress against them because he had interpreted "urgently" in a different way from them? I should be grateful if that point also could be cleared up.
    Mr. Robens: Upon the point raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) the answer is that in the event of a dispute the courts would decide that matter. We have already pointed out during the passage of this Bill what has happened in the past. As a matter of fact, with regard to specific payments, the Board, since they became the Board, and private owners before, have made it a normal practice where there is a dispute to go to arbitration. If they cannot accept the decision of the arbitrator they can go to the county court. If the Coal Board were to say to an individual, "We do not regard this as an urgent repair and we are not going to pay for it, "they would very likely submit to arbitration whether it was an urgent repair or not. If the Coal Board did not accept the decision the aggrieved person might go to the county court. It is within the recollection of the Committee that we have said from time to time that we do not like tribunals and we leave the courts to deal with it.
    So far as ex gratia payments are concerned, this Bill is something additional to what has already been done by the Coal Board, and does not prevent the Board from doing anything which it normally did. I am not certain under what circumstances the hon. Gentleman was speaking in terms of an ex gratia payment. The difference this Bill makes is that automatically every structure damaged by subsidence will come within its terms, and therefore there will be payments for the structural damage; but I am not certain in what way he is now talking in terms of an ex gratia payment.
    Sir H. Williams: Suppose a man fails to give notice in what turns out to be the permitted time in the regulations later to be published, and the Coal Board dispute it. Are they free within their powers to make an ex gratia payment?
    Mr. Robens: Yes, Sir. It is merely a question of whether the Coal Board can be generous in the interpretation of its duties under this Bill. The answer is of course, "Yes." There is nothing to prevent them doing that. Perhaps I ought to emphasise once again that my right hon. Friend has agreed that when he makes the regulations he will put in provisos covering late claims. Clearly, there is no intention on the part of the Government, and certainly none on the part of the Coal Board, to try to get out of the obligations put upon them by this Bill. We shall have to make provisos in the regulations covering late claims.
    Sir H. Williams: Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say on my last point about the words "carried out by any other person."
    Mr. Robens: Subsection (2) deals with repairs carried out in the time from the publication of the Bill until it becomes an Act. This merely relates to repairs which will have been carried out by persons other than the Coal Board. Any other person than the Coal Board who has carried out repairs, provided that notice has been given at the appropriate time, will be able to get the cost of the repairs done between the dates I have mentioned.
    Sir H. Williams: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has got the point. He will remember that we proposed an Amendment, in page 5, line 2, to leave out from "unless" to "has" in line 3, and to insert "that person." That brings us back to the words on page 4 "carried out by any other person." I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the same person in both cases. The words may be interpreted as "carried out by a builder" or, "carried out upon the instructions of the person referred to in page 5, line 2." This is a question of legal interpretation.
    Mr. Robens: It is the instructing person who is referred to.
    Mr. Bracken: The Parliamentary Secretary is a master of paradox.
    Mr. Robens: He needs to be when he has the right hon. Gentleman in front of him.
    Mr. Bracken: His grasp on the obvious is really like that of a vice. What has he told us? He says that if a person has an urgent claim, the Government will provide him with certain machinery. Urgency in this case means if there is a great split in the roof of a man's house and the house is likely to fall down. In circumstances like that, one hopes for quick action, and the Minister offers this splendid opportunity: first, he says one can go to arbitration; later he says that if one is dissatisfied with arbitration, one can go to the county courts. What a way of suggesting that one should get the repairs done.
    Mr. Robens: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman may get away with a good deal, but he really cannot get away with this. We are talking about a man whose property is damaged by subsidence. He regards the matter as urgent and, without notice to the Board, he gets the property repaired. Then the Board, it is suggested, might say that the matter was not urgent and they might refuse to pay. The right hon. Gentleman asks what would happen, and I replied that in that case the split in the roof is covered up. There is no rain coming in and everything is fine. The only point at issue is——
    Mr. Bracken: We know that.
    Mr. Robens: Right. Then we come to the machinery I have described. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman, as the champion of the miners in this House, will agree that it is good machinery.
    Mr. Bracken: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his two tributes—that he treats me with great respect and that I am the champion of the miners. That is a duty which should be discharged by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they have failed in it.
    I daresay that the Parliamentary Secretary does not quite know what happens inside his own Government. Nobody really does know, but there is a gentleman called the Minister of Health, and, in order to assist him in his operations, there is a gentleman called the

    1907
    Minister of Works. I am told that they are on speaking terms at present. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that it is possible to get straight away, a licence to repair a split roof caused by subsidence, he is wrong. It is not possible. It will require a recommendation from his own Department.
    Mr. Robens: If the right hon. Gentleman was in the House more often, he would know that any work costing up to £100 need not have a licence.
    Mr. Bracken: That is the sort of argument that one hears from the hon. Gentleman. Does he know, for instance, that in any case of serious subsidence the cost to the unfortunate dweller in the house afflicted is far more than £100. The Minister puts his finger up and says, "Crack in the roof." A crack in the roof may lead to the destruction of the house.
    If I could interrupt the conversation between the Lord Advocate and the Minister, it would be of advantage to this Debate. I agree that it is a pity that an inferior Law Officer from Scotland should take the place of the Attorney-General, but Dr. Johnson once told the Scots to be civil, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to take his advice. I asked the Minister to reconsider this matter. It is a pretty serious proposition. I think that the Minister is benign, and I feel sure that he will take a lot of notice of the advice I have given in such moderate terms.
    Mr. Redmayne: Before we leave this matter, I should like to stress one point. In discussing both the Amendment and the Clause, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister talked about referring these matters to the local authority associations and to the property owners' associations. I wish to speak most strongly in support of what was said by the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) and the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver).
    1908
    It is doubtful whether these associations represent a majority opinion on the question of coal mining subsidence and whether they represent the type of people whom we are trying to protect under this Bill. I ask that the opinion received from these bodies should be balanced by a consideration of the general opinion from the small man's point of view.
    Mr. Powell: Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer the question I asked about the Regulations under subsection (1)?
    Mr. Nabarro: It might be pertinent to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to whom a notice of subsidence should be sent in the event of such subsidence occurring as a result of opencast coal mining activity, instead of deep mining activity. There appears to be a good deal of misapprehension in this Committee, and there was a good deal of misapprehension during the Second Reading Debate, as to whether subsidence could occur at all after opencast coal mining activities had taken place. For instance the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies), who is a distinguished mining engineer, almost challenged whether subsidence could occur; yet in many official reports on this subject in the last few years there has been direct reference to the dangers of this type of subsidence.
    In the final stages, shortly before the conclusion of the Second Reading Debate, I tackled the Parliamentary Secretary on the point, and he gave a definition which was a trifle confused. He said that, at short notice, he had only been able to skip through the Bill, and that he found that damage caused by opencast mining activities would be compensated under Defence Regulation 51 B. When I asked him if that covered subsidence caused by opencast coal mining activities the Parliamentary Secretary said, "No" and added that that would come within the terms of this Bill.

ROYAL ASSENT
6.0 p.m.
Whereupon, The GENTLEMAN USHER of the BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, having returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. High Court and County Court Judges Act, 1950.

2. Newfoundland (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1950.

3. Statute Law Revision Act, 1950.

4. Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1950.

5. St John's Chapel Beverley Act, 1950.

6. Gun Barrel Proof Act, 1950.

7. Tees Conservancy Act, 1950.

8. City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1950.

9. German Potash Syndicate Loan Act, 1950.

COAL MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL
Again considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]

COAL MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL

  Clause 5.—(NOTICE OF SUBSIDENCE DAM AGE AND REPAIRS TO BE GIVEN TO NATIONAL COAL BOARD.)
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Nabarro: As I was saying, before we broke off, there is a good deal of confusion and misapprehension as to whom the notice should be sent under this Clause notifying damage arising from subsidence if that damage occurs as a result of opencast coal mining activities. During the last few minutes of the Debate on Second Reading of this Bill, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary this question, and he replied that damage arising from opencast coal mining would be dealt with, for compensation purposes, under paragraph 51 (b) of the Defence Regulations. When I countered further by asking whether, if that damage arose as the
  1910
  result of subsidence occurring after opencast coal mining, it would still be covered by paragraph 51 (b), he replied that it would not; that it would then be dealt with under this Bill.
  I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this Bill only makes reference to the National Coal Board. If the notice were sent, as is referred to in Clause 5, to the National Coal Board, they would, in my long experience of their activities dating back to 1st January, 1947, immediately wash their hands of it, and say, "Opencast mining activities are none of our business. Therefore, subsidence arising from those activities are similarly none of our business, and this claim and the notice should be forwarded direct to the Ministry of Fuel and Power." I suggest that, at this stage, it might be convenient for the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up this misapprehension which exists between the functions of the two bodies, particularly in so far as the notice of subsidence damage is concerned.
  Mr. Robens: As far as subsidence damage is concerned in relation to opencast workings, I ought to say that all the experience of the Department over the many years they have been engaged in such mining, shows that there is no evidence at all that such mining has caused subsidence damage. However, let us assume for a moment that subsidence damage is caused through opencast mining. The answer is that it would come within this Bill because Clause 1 lays it as an obligation upon the National Coal Board to pay for all structural damage caused by coal working, and it does not say by whom or by what method. It may well be that opencast creeps into this Bill, but, nevertheless, the fact is that whoever removes the coal, whether by opencast methods or by the granting of a licence to some private individuals to remove the mineral, if subsidence damage is caused to the structure of a house, then the obligation is on the National Coal Board to pay for that damage.
  Mr. Nabarro: Am I to infer from that definition that the hon. Gentleman is putting the National Coal Board into the position of being the paying agent for compensation for the Directorate of Opencast Coal Mining of the Ministry of Fuel and Power?
  Mr. Robens: In point of fact, that is what will happen in practice, but, in law, it will be the National Coal Board that will have to pay. I freely admit that opencast mining subsidence damage does creep into this Bill, but it was never intended for that purpose. We have no evidence that such damage occurs, but, nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the National Coal Board would pay, and that then we would make the administrative arrangement to cover our own position as between the Directorate of Opencast Mining and the National Coal Board.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 6.—(POWERS OF NATIONAL COAL BOARD IN CASES WHERE FURTHER DAMAGE IS LIKELY.)
  6.15 p.m.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 5, line 40, after "out," to insert:
  "and in any event not later than three years from the date of the first subsidence damage."
  This Clause deals with the powers of the National Coal Board in cases where further damage is likely. The Board are empowered, if they think there is a risk of continuing damage, to defer their obligation. Under subsection (2). however, it is laid down that
  "It shall be the duty of the National Coal Board, as soon as permanent repairs to the dwelling-house or building can properly be carried out, to revoke any notice given by them "
  under subsection (1) deferring their obligation.
  We on this side of the Committee do not in any way quarrel with the general intention of those words, but we feel that the precise meaning of
  "as soon as permanent repairs … can properly be carried out"
  is rather vague. We appreciate, of course, that a fair amount of latitude must be left to the National Coal Board. They know what has happened, and it is really for them to say whether they think they have finished the work and that matters have settled down. We feel that there should be a limit put to their powers to defer. There may be the case where damage is caused as a result of working one seam, and it may be the Board's
  1912
  intention to work another seam, and, possibly, even a third seam, in the same place. They might say, "Well, after all, we have done a little damage to this house, but as we shall be working another seam in four or five years' time, and possibly yet another in 10 or 12 years' time, it would be better to defer our obligation for 10 or 12 years."
  I do not think that three years is necessarily the right period, but we seek by this Amendment to insert some limitation so as to ensure that the Coal Board cannot, in fact, put off their obligation at their own sweet will, possibly to the Greek Kalends. We suggest the addition of words limiting the Board's power to defer their obligation for three years. I hope that the Government will be able to indicate their intention in the matter, and that, even if they cannot accept the precise wording of this Amendment, they will say what they think should be the limit so that we may be able in due course and in case of need to ensure that the Board do not get this unlimited power.
  Mr. Robens: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends opposite would be surprised if we were to accept this Amendment. Indeed, he indicated the difficulties about this, and my hon. Friends on this side who are miners and representing mining constituencies know the difficulty about deciding when, in fact, subsidence has finally finished. I am not sure that the putting of a three years' limit, and at the end of that period compelling the Board to make permanent repairs, would, in fact, be a useful thing to the owner of the property. It would depend largely on when the movement of the ground had finished, and the Board would be in the best position to know that. I understand the hon. Gentleman's position regarding this matter. He does not want the National Coal Board to be difficult about a case; he does not want them to delay carrying out permanent repairs for, maybe, generations, simply because they may decide to work other seams at various intervals.
  I cannot accept the Amendment and I cannot really say that if we considered it again, we would come back to the Committee and say, "You could put a date into it." All I can say is that it is the definite intention of His Majesty's Government that the permanent repairs

  1913
  should be done as soon as it is reasonably practicable for those repairs to be effective. I know we look like having an argument about "reasonable and practicable," but I am sure the Committee understands that I am making this in all sincerity and good faith. I assure the Committee that the Coal Board, if I may be permitted to us the term, will not in any circumstance play around with an owner of property and not make that repair as they should do. I think we shall have to leave it to the good faith of the Coal Board and the good faith of the Minister of Fuel and Power, whoever he may be, to see that the Coal Board does the right thing.
  Finally, the owner can go to the county court. He has always the county court to which to go back in these matters and say, "It is time permanent repairs were effected to my house." The onus will be on the Coal Board to prove that they should not be permanent repairs because ground movement is to go on. I doubt whether it would be necessary for an owner to take the matter to the county court. I really do not see that one can consider putting in any time, because no one knows when the earth movement would finish. Certainly, it could not be put in the Bill to cover all cases. I ask the Committee to trust to the good will of the Board on this and, in the final analysis, to the county courts.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is not quite enough to consider whether or not subsidence resulting from work already done has finished. The position may be that the Coal Board say that although the subsidence from a particular work is finished it is their intention, at the very earliest, to work again. As far as I can see, the county court then would have no option but to say that, since the Board tell them so, the court must believe it.
  Mr. Robens: Though I am not an expert on these matters, I should have thought that the county court would take reasonableness into consideration. For example, assuming a seam had been worked and damage caused and there was no intention to work the next seam, which would cause further movement of earth, for five or 10 years, I think the county court would be inclined to say, "You are to make permanent repair to that house, and if later on, damage takes place, you
  1914
  go through the motions once again." I have great faith in what the county courts do in these things. That is the advantage of county courts—that they can bring sweet reasonableness to bear with all the evidence that is within their knowledge. I think hon. Members should be happy about this.
  Colonel Clarke: While accepting the hon. Gentleman's point that there are considerable difficulties about drafting suitable words to keep the obligation well before the Coal Board, I do not think the position ought to be left quite as it is at present. When one wants to put a thing off, it is so easy, when one is short of materials, labour, time and money, to find some very good reason why one should not do it. It will be found that it is not in the interest of the Government or in the interest of the Coal Board, even if they have the best intentions. It would be fairer if there were something in the Bill making it necessary for the matter to be reviewed automatically after three years rather than leaving the onus on the owners to go to the county court. I cannot suggest any form of words, but it should not be left entirely to the Coal Board as these things are apt to be shelved.
  Mr. T. Brown: One appreciates the difficulty of the Ministry on this aspect of mining subsidence, but it is of paramount importance that the Minister and his Department should be aware of what is now taking place. We are now discussing the effect of what subsequent mining operations will have upon houses that have already been damaged by mining subsidence. It is a rather singular fact—I have not yet been able to understand it—that, simultaneously with the submission of this Bill for its Second Reading, the National Coal Board in North-West Lancashire, which has experienced a considerable amount of damage due to mining subsidence, served formal notice upon the two local authorities in my constituency indicating that they proposed working a further 15 seams. The seams are tremendous
  It is not my intention to tell the Committee the names of the seams or their thicknesses, but I have gone to the trouble of finding out what it means. There will be subsequent mining operations in these two areas, which have already

  1915
  suffered colossal damage due to mining subsidence. I am not complaining about it; we have to get the coal from somewhere. If we were able to take out the stratification between the 15 sections and put the coal of each section on top of the other, one would have a coal measure of 36 feet.
  As one representing a mining constituency and one with a knowledge of the practical side of mine work, I can visualise what it will mean in these districts. If the Coal Board are going to have the opportunity of saying to people who own property, "Until the final subsidence has taken place we cannot execute repairs," I can visualise that these property owners—and, unfortunately, many of them are mine workers—having to live in a state of inconvenience for 10 or 15 years until permanent settlement has taken place.
  I appeal to the Minister, to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Department to be cognisant of this. They cannot allow damaged property to continue in that state for an indefinite period, causing inconvenience, trouble and anxiety to people. Whilst I agree that there is a real practical difficulty confronting the Minister of Fuel and Power on this point, it is within the realm of possibility to tell or instruct the National Coal Board what is a reasonable period during which they should allow property to be in a state of dilapidation. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, whose sympathy in this direction is manifest from time to time, to give this matter his very serious consideration.
  Mr. Robens: I have been turning this over in my mind, after listening to the arguments advanced, and particularly to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Tom Brown). The Committee generally is agreed about the difficulty of putting a time in the Bill. I would undertake to have a look at this and to consider putting something in the Bill that would be a guidance to the county court on this matter. I think that if we did that, it would meet the situation that has been referred to and meet the objections that hon. Members opposite have raised. I should like to think about the matter and consult the appropriate people, but it seems to me that that would meet the situation.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: We should like to express our appreciation of the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude. I must admit that when the Debate on this Amendment started, I did not think that the case was so strong that we would want to press it, but after listening to my hon. Friend the case seemed stronger, and particularly so after the speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Tom Brown). I was going to make the suggestion which the Parliamentary Secretary has made, namely, that between now and the Report stage he will consider the point.
  Mr. Peter Roberts: I am disappointed with the Minister because I feel that this Amendment should not be adopted by the Government. Let me explain why. I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary resisting it in the first place, and I am now a little distressed to see him weakening after the attack by both sides of the Committee.
  Mr. Robens: We are trying to make this Bill a good Bill within the limitations which it may contain. What I am resisting, and what I shall continue to resist, is the suggestion that we should put a time limit in the Bill. I adduced the argument that, in the final analysis, the county court was the protector of the poor owner-occupier against the Coal Board if the need arose. I said it was likely that we might give the county court some guidance on this matter, and that is what I am prepared to look at. I am with the hon. Gentleman in resisting the insertion of a time limit in the Bill.
  Mr. Roberts: I am speaking entirely from my own point of view, and not from the point of view of any hon. Members on either side of the Committee, with whom I am not in agreement. The reason that I say the Minister should resist this Amendment is that, as far as I can see, with my knowledge of subsidence, I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in regard to the length of time which it will take for subsidence to appear. Speaking for the taxpayers of my constituency, I hope that the amount of money which will have to be spent will not be too great. With such knowledge as I have of mining, I believe that in nearly every case it would be possible for the Coal Board to say that in their opinion further damage might occur. I was hoping that

  1917
  the Minister would resist the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Minister for Hen-don, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), because I should feel much happier if the Coal Board were able to resist such a heavy charge being made upon themselves or upon the Treasury.
  I regret that the Minister has taken the line that he has indicated, because the Coal Board will not have a way out of the difficulty. Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary said how much easier it was to deal with the Coal Board than with the old industry, and it occurred to me that the Coal Board themselves have got this Clause put into the Bill. I am wondering whether, when the Parliamentary Secretary discusses this matter with the Coal Board, he will find the situation a little more difficult. My hon. Friend argued his case extremely well; in fact, so well that the Minister has now given way, and I am extremely disappointed in him.
  Mr. John McKay: I have listened to the Debate with a good deal of interest. Although we are here as a body of representative people, we have heard arguments in favour of leaving the decision to the Coal Board. We know the difficulties that are likely to arise, and yet we are expected to leave it to somebody else to do what he thinks is wise, and we shall have little opportunity of criticising the decision.
  My experience has been that in the industrial world, when we have been dealing with agreements, it has been quite common for the employers to say, "There is no need to press the matter so much. Leave it to us. We are working together in quite a friendly way. Why press this thing and try to change the agreement? Surely you can trust us a little bit." When that point has been reached I have always argued, "If you want us to trust you, you should also trust us. If there is such amity between us, why not put into the agreement the exact words which will cover any possible dispute?"
  As to this Amendment, I have tried to put myself into the position of the people who are living in these houses. We can always leave matters for a long period when we are not directly concerned. It is astonishing what we can allow other people to suffer when we are not in the same boat as they are. I want the Committee
  1918
  to imagine a house which has suffered damage through subsidence. Half of the house is in a bad condition and cannot be used. The occupants have lived in those conditions for 12 months, or even two years. The Amendment says "Let them live under those conditions for three years," because there is the danger that in the fourth year or the tenth year or the fortieth year, those houses may be affected again by subsidence.
  Surely in a case like that there is some need for a time limit. It is unreasonable to expect families whose property has been damaged to have to live for any lengthy period in that property because further damage may be created by subsidence later on. We should either repair the house and take the risk, or else say that the danger is so great that the house will not be repaired.
  Mr. Robens: This does not stop the repair of the house at all. We are talking only about the final permanent repair, which is quite different from running repairs.
  Mr. Bracken: Do not be put off by that nonsense.
  Mr. McKay: If my hon. Friend will give us an assurance, which I presume he has done, that houses which have been damaged will be put into a habitable condition——
  Mr. Robens: Certainly.
  Mr. McKay: —and made capable of being used as they were used prior to the damage, then the whole position is changed. I do not profess to be a builder, but I presume that if a damaged house can be put into practically the same condition as it was in before, then the difference between putting a house into that condition and putting it into a proper condition, would not be very great.
  I do not want to press the Government too much, but, while we recognise the absolute necessity for this Bill, we on this side of the Committee should not be too particular about inserting a few words of this description into the Clause, even though our liberties may be limited to some extent by so doing. I want to impress the Parliamentary Secretary with the necessity for considering this matter with a view to improving this Clause.
  Mr. Bracken: What an admirable speech we have just heard. If one were to criticise it, one might say that the condemnation of the Government by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay)——
  Mr. McKay: I was trying to help the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) in his Amendment. [Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends say I should not, but many of my hon. Friends have already done the same. When an hon. Member is attempting to support an Amendment, I suggest that in common decency the right hon. Gentleman should not try to include something which was not said.
  Mr. Bracken: Far from including what was not said, I would say that some sentences were couched in rather more severe language than those used by my hon. Friends. However, there is no party issue here, and of course the hon. Member for Wallsend was right to make these striking criticisms. I wish I possessed his vocabulary and his willingness to criticise Ministers.
  The position here is perhaps extraordinary. The Minister, who has, on the whole, given us a satisfactory assurance, has not explained to us how that assurance can be translated into practical effect. As you know, Major Milner, in your capacity as Deputy-Speaker, time after time in the House the Minister tells us that he will not answer questions about the Coal Board and will not put any pressure upon the Coal Board. Now the Minister says, in effect, "Leave it to me; the Coal Board will do what I want." Of course, if the Minister has acquired new powers—and I do not blame him if he has—he should tell us about them.
  Mr. Robens: What I said was that, after listening to the arguments, we would look at the situation and see whether we could put in the Bill some guidance to the county courts which would meet all the points that have been advanced. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not here at the time.
  Mr. Bracken: I heard that part of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech and it almost made me feel that we were living in a totalitarian State. What right have we to give guidance to judges? I am glad to see that the Lord President of the Council has arrived, for this statement by
  1920
  the Parliamentary Secretary is the most remarkable statement I have heard in this House—a Minister, and a junior Minister at that, announcing that he is going to give guidance to the courts.
  Mr. Robens: Through Parliament.
  Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. He said he was going to give guidance to the courts. I was asking him, before I was interrupted, what were his powers to give guidance to the Coal Board. That is the question at issue, because unless the Coal Board will fulfil the hon. Gentleman's behest, then, of course, we cannot get any real satisfaction. As you, Major Milner, an eminent lawyer, no doubt agree, it seems astonishing when a Parliamentary Secretary declares in this House that he is going to give guidance to the courts. It needs a real flash of dynamite to get rid of the present Lord Chancellor, but that speech might.
  6.45 p.m.
  Sir P. Spens: I want to refer again to the phrase of the Parliamentary Secretary "guidance to the county court" and to point out to him that there is a great deal of guidance given to the county court in the subsection. I want also to deal with his suggestion that it would be for the Coal Board to show that there would be more subsidence In fact, it is exactly the other way round. It is on the application of the wretched owner, who has to go to the county court and satisfy the county court that no further subsidence damage is likely to occur. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) spoke of a large area in which the Coal Board had served notice on the local authorities informing them that in the future they propose to work 15 seams of coal. In such a case the owner has no sort of hope of satisfying the county court that there is not likely to be further subsidence, because the Coal Board have only to say that they propose, in some reasonable time in the future, to work some more seams of coal for his task to be hopeless.
  There are two separate aspects to this problem. The first is where there has already been working and where subsidence has started from that working and is likely to continue for a reasonable period. The other case is where the Coal Board propose to start new workings, a new seam, in the same area. I very much

  1921
  doubt whether the same criteria should be applied in both cases. What would satisfy me would be for the Parliamentary Secretary, when he came to consider the guidance he would give to the county court, to strike out altogether these words and give the county court a discretion. Surely the right thing to do is to give the county court a discretion where in particular circumstances—I think the hon. Member for Ince does not agree with me.
  Mr. Brown: When I mentioned the working of the 15 seams, I was referring to the potential working of that area and I was trying to show that on a subsequent date the property which had already experienced damage would be damaged still further; and I was appealing to the Minister to impress upon the Coal Board that they should not postpone the repairs to property already damaged until the final subsidence had taken place. The Minister has given an undertaking that he will do that.
  Sir P. Spens: I agree—a different criterion ought to be applied to different circumstances. Where damage has already occurred through workings, then at the earliest possible moment it should be repaired irrespective of whether, in the distant future, the Coal Board propose to work new seams in the same area. I suggest that if the Parliamentary Secretary takes this into consideration, he will certainly strike out on Report stage these very imperative directions that an applicant has to prove his case before a county court and will substitute something to give the county court a little more discretion as to when an order should be made. Let the county court decide, "After all, the Coal Board have been going on long enough and it is time the proper repairs were made to this house."
  Lord Dunglass: I have had a certain amount of experience recently of this kind of subsidence in a farm and in farm buildings used for animals. We had legal dealings with the Coal Board and the legal officer of the Coal Board stuck to the absolute letter of the law, so that no practical solution to the problem could be reached. If I had not gone to the Chairman of the Scottish National Coal Board, nothing would have been done to this day—of that I am convinced. But the ordinary owner of a
  1922
  house and the ordinary small farmer does not possess that kind of access, and in such circumstances I think this farm would have been left in a condition in which it was practically impossible to keep a dairy herd—for it was a dairy herd in this case—in good condition and impossible to keep the calves and other animals alive.
  In that area the Coal Board have given notice that they will work a further three seams, which may affect another four or five farms. When the damage occurs to those farms, as inevitably it will, it will be an intolerable state of affairs if the farmers have to wait two or three years before they can have repaired the damage to the buildings in which they keep their stock. The Minister has offered this concession—he said he will give guidance to the county courts. Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at it? I am not satisfied, in the first place, that he can give the guidance, or, in the second place, that the county court would accept it. Will the Minister have another look at this Clause? I would rather have the Minister use his authority in this matter in a particular case——
  Mr. Robens: The noble Lord does understand, I hope, that we are talking about permanent repairs, and not temporary repairs? If there were repairs to be done, they would in fact be done. It is a question of permanent repairs—permanent and final repairs. That is the only point we are discussing. With great respect, I would say that we are really discussing an Amendment which says that at the end of three years, no matter what happens to the structure, permanent repairs should be effected. I am suggesting that that is an impossible situation, and none of the arguments the noble Lord has adduced really has anything to do with the point that is under consideration.
  Lord Dunglass: I quite understand the point. Three years is mentioned only in order to raise the matter and to allow the Minister to think again but in the case I am quoting we had the question of temporary repairs, and temporary repairs were quite useless. What was wanted was, in fact, permanent repairs. I think that this machinery, even the machinery of the county court proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is too clumsy. I ask him to think again and to see whether

  1923
  he cannot get a shorter interval so that permanent repairs can be made.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's undertaking to look at this again—and, no doubt, he will consider all that has been said since he gave his undertaking—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir H. Williams: This Clause relates to damage which has occurred on or after 1st January, 1947—nearly three and a half years ago. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say what he really means by "permanent repairs" and "In cases where further damage is likely." Those are the words in the side title of the Clause, and although I know that that has no legal significance it is, nevertheless, a guide to what the Clause is all about, and I should like to know exactly how finality can be reached in the circumstances which are indicated in the terms of the Clause. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us a little guidance on that?
  Mr. Oliver: I should like to make one or two points about the application of this Clause, because it is one of the most difficult in the whole of this Bill. The last Amendment indicated the delays which may take place before a final decision can be arrived at as to the final repairing of the property. In many instances—and this is the experience in many mining constituencies—by reason of the very severe damage to dwelling-houses, the houses may have to be evacuated and remain empty for a very long time. When that property happens to be owned by a miner or a working man he experiences considerable financial embarrassment by having to seek alternative accommodation.
  I should like to know whether that cost would be regarded as a part of the damage of subsidence, and whether it is the intention, in the application of the Clause, that, where an owner-occupier—and I am more concerned about the owner-occupiers—is put to considerable expense by reason of having to leave his home, any compensation is provided for his financial loss.
  Mr. Robens: The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) is that it is not so. The Bill provides only for payments for structural damage. It may be unfortunate, but, nevertheless, payments for inconvenience and suffering are not covered by the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) asked me whether I could define what permanent damage was
  Sir H. Williams: Permanent repairs.
  Mr. Robens: I am sorry—permanent repairs, of course. It would be beyond me to do so, and I doubt very much whether anyone could say what permanent repairs are. I can only give an illustration. If there is subsidence damage by which an outside wall is very severely cracked, so that it may be very dangerous and likely to fall, one may fill up the crack with mortar or concrete plaster, because further movement may make it worse and cause further structural damage; and so one would, perhaps, put a plate across it to make sure that the wall did not come down.
  Mr. Bracken: Put a what?
  Mr. Robens: Not a plate one eats from, but a steel plate.
  Mr. Bracken: Very funny.
  Mr. Robens: Subsequently, when the movement has finished, one would effect what I would term permanent repairs; that is, the steel plate would be taken away and one would repair the brick work with plaster or concrete or whatever was used to effect permanent repairs.
  Mr. Bracken: When the hon. Gentleman talks about permanent repairs and uses this dangerous analogy he must remember that one can repair the foundations that are affected by subsidence, and can put in a plate—if the hon. Gentleman likes that expression. But in point of fact more or worse damage may follow in a very short time. It is quite impossible for permanent repairs to be made. You could, perhaps, Major Milner, out of your genius, get from the Minister a definition what is called "permanent repairs," but there is not any such thing until subsidence has come to an end. Until then it is not possible to make permanent repairs.
  Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman is confirming everything I said in answer to his hon. Friend. I have not raised the matter of permanent repairs. It was his hon. Friend, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred a little earlier as a "camp follower in the Tory Party"—an amazing thing to say about him——
  Mr. Bracken: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to attribute a most insulting form of words to a Member of the Opposition Front Bench in order to create differences between colleagues?
  The Chairman: I am afraid it is very frequently done.
  Sir H. Williams: I do not think we have had an answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] The Debate has not finished.
  The Chairman: We had a very long Debate on this matter, and I hope the Committee will come to a decision.
  Sir H. Williams: No. I am not satisfied. We are on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but it does not yet stand part, and nobody has moved the Closure. I am not satisfied. Actually, the Parliamentary Secretary had not finished speaking, because he was interrupted by my right hon. Friend.
  I want to go a little further with this question of permanent repairs. I am very familiar with steel plates and steel bars. I have seen hundreds of them in the Black Country, with which at one time I was very closely connected. It does not mean that, because one puts a steel plate at one end of the house and a steel bar through, no further damage can occur.
  I want to know what "permanent repairs" really means. Is it "permanent for the time being"? After all, the county court has to be satisfied that no further subsidence damage is likely to occur. How are we to discover that, in districts where subsidence takes place? It is not possible—certainly not for the Minister of Fuel and Power or the county court—to make such a decision. I think we ought to have a little more information about what was in the mind of the Government in drafting this Clause. So far, the Parliamentary Secretary has not satisfied me. That is why I got up, despite the plea of the Chairman that we should come to a decision on this, because I
  1926
  hope that we may have a little further information than we have yet had.
  7.0 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith-waite Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith-waite (Bristol, North-West) rose——
  The Chairman: Order. I must put the Question now.
  Sir H. Williams: Why?
  Mr. Bracken: On a point of order. There is no obstruction from this side of the Committee. We do not want to waste time by going into the Lobby in Divisions, but my hon. and gallant Friend has an important point to put, and I should have thought that it would help our business along if he were allowed to put it.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Delargy rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 7.—(FURTHER PROVISIONS WHEN DAMAGE CONTINUES OVER A PERIOD.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir H. Williams: As the Government are so reluctant to discuss Clause 6 any further we must now discuss Clause 7. Any attempt to "bulldose" the Committee——
  Mr. Bracken: We were "gagged."
  Sir H. Williams: —is a great mistake. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Any hon. Member who, instead of making curious noises, will take the trouble to read Clause 7, will observe that it provides for further provisions when damage continues over a period; that is to say, this Clause has to be related to Clause 6. But, again, we come to the question of permanent repairs, in respect of which I did not receive a satisfactory answer just now from the Parliamentary Secretary. I therefore hope that he will now give me the answer, despite the fact that one of the Government Whips prevented

  1927
  him doing so last time by moving the Closure quite unnecessarily on a very important Clause.
  Mr. Bracken: When he was on his feet, too.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I desire to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). Just before you occupied the Chair, Sir Charles, the Committee witnessed a very astonishing incident, with the Parliamentary Secretary rising in an attempt to give a reply and finding himself closured by a representative of the usual channels sitting on his left.
  Mr. Bracken: An upstart Whip.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I would not call him upstart. Personally, I would call him dumb and incompetent.
  During the discussion on Clause 6 the Parliamentary Secretary said, when questioned on the meaning of the words "permanent repairs," which had been put into the Bill by his draftsman and studied, presumably, by his right hon. Friend and himself before coming here to conduct the Committee stage, that he had not a clue as to what those words mean. This is the Minister, who, a few minutes ago, posed as the guide of the judiciary. He told us how he was going to guide county court judges on the way they should perform their functions. There has been nothing like it since the descent of Moses from Mount Sinai, with the exception of the fact that Moses had studied the Ten Commandments and took them through a committee stage with great ability. The Parliamentary Secretary now has the opportunity—or perhaps his right hon. Friend will tell us, because we always like to listen to him——
  Mr. Bracken: And to the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: —what these mysterious words "permanent repairs" really mean when interpreted in the courts. It has been made clear from both sides of the Committee that there is no permanence in these matters. In any case, it is extremely difficult to define. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), whose experience goes back over a long period of years and who is listened
  1928
  to with attention on these matters, was most emphatic about it I doubt if he places much reliance on the Parliamentary Secretary's guidance to the courts or to anyone else. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are nonplussed as to what the Bill means, but none more nonplussed than the Parliamentary Secretary. It seems to me that we ought not to part with this important Clause unless we have some interpretation of these words.
  Those of us who have been in the House any length of time all know that when Bills are going through it is frequently said that the words may be a little obscure but the declarations of the Minister as the Bill proceeds are read by the learned judges who have to interpret them, and that the Debate is often a guide on points which may seem a little obscure. Well, here we are confronted with an entirely new situation. Here are words which are obscure, and which the Parliamentary Secretary says are obscure to no one more than to himself; he cannot give us an inkling as to what they mean. I must say, that is making a farce of a Committee stage of a Bill even under an incompetent Government like this.
  Mr. Robens: During the Committee stage of the Bill we have had good humour, and we have not had to listen to unnecessarily offensive speeches such as that to which we have just listened.
  Mr. Bracken: Offensive?
  Mr. Robens: Well, it is a matter of opinion as to what is offensive and what is not. It is my opinion that that speech was unnecessarily offensive.
  Mr. Bracken: Send for the Minister of Health.
  Mr. Robens: I have been asked, "What is a permanent repair?" A few moments ago the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) stood at that Box and said that it could not be defined. In fact, when he interrupted me I was in the middle of explaining that a permanent repair depended entirely upon the circumstances of the case at that time. Therefore, when the county court comes to decide what is a permanent repair they will look at the evidence presented to them on the particular structure. A permanent repair is

  1929
  obviously a final repair—the job completed—and the only point about this part of the Bill is that we are saying to the Coal Board, "You may go on making repairs, but you may at your discretion not make a permanent repair until you are satisfied that no further damage will take place."
  When I am asked, "What is a permanent repair?" I say it depends entirely upon the circumstances of the case. Having examined that case, any sensible and intelligent person knows what a permanent repair is, but it will depend entirely, it seems to me, upon the circumstances of each case, and I have a very much higher opinion of the intelligence of county court judges than to suggest that they themselves would not be able, if appealed to under this Clause, to determine what was a permanent repair.
  Mr. Bracken: It is all very well for us to hear this tribute to county court judges by their newly and self-appointed guide, but I feel that most hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been treated exceedingly discourteously by the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. Robens: Very courteously.
  Mr. Bracken: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, and say he was discourteous?
  Mr. Robens: No. I said I thought that I had treated the Committee very courteously.
  Mr. Bracken: Well, it depends upon the standard of values upon which one judges courtesy. The hon. Gentleman is generally courteous, and I must say that I forgive him for losing his temper, because he has been treated in the most monstrous way. He was interrupted while still on his feet and "gagged" by an obscure Whip. Such things have never happened in the House of Commons, except under a Government like this. I was interested in the intellectual meanderings of the Parliamentary Secretary when trying to explain the meaning of "permanent repairs." I do not know, but I should have thought that the Minister might even cast his eye around these buildings, which, in the last century, have been three times repaired, once at an immense expenditure of public money.
  Mr. James Hudson: On a point of order. Is it in order, on a
  1930
  Bill dealing with coal subsidence, to discuss the construction of this building and the possibilities of repair?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman was seeking to explain what he thought permanent repairs were, and he was giving an example.
  Mr. Bracken: I forgive the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) for his conviviality. I know where he spent last night and where he is going tonight. I forgive him in every way. The importation to this country of so much French wine has been a temptation to which he has apparently fallen.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): Shame. Withdraw.
  Mr. Bracken: I will not withdraw. It is the highest possible tribute to the hon. Gentleman. The Lord Advocate who may think that toddy is civilisation must remember that there is something to be said for the wines of France. This, however, is rather irrelevant.
  We have finished with the Parliamentary Secretary, who has done his best. We sometimes say rather harsh things about him, but he has done his best, in his own limited way, to explain the meaning of permanent repairs. He has not succeeded. This is a time when we must hear from the Minister, and if there are legal issues at stake, no more welcome interrupter would be the Lord Advocate, whose uncle served with me in this House. He has few opportunities of speaking, perhaps because of the Whips' interference, but, whatever the reason, we want an answer about these permanent repairs.
  The Minister who "spell-bound" the United Nations, partly by the length of his oratory and partly by its quality, ought to tell us what is meant by permanent repairs. The Minister knows that there is no such thing as permanent repairs when subsidence exists over a large area. Surely he knows that. In order not to extend the duration of the Debate and try the patience of the Committee, I will gladly give way to the Minister now. I think that we should hear from the Minister, because he is not treating the Committee very respectfully by sitting there mute and innocuous.
  Sir William Darling: I hope that the Committee will

  1931
  excuse me if I have not followed this matter very clearly, because the discussion seemed to be very diffuse. The Parliamentary Secretary when he was speaking on Clause 7 seemed to be referring to Clause 6. Permanent repairs and county court judges do not appear in Clause 7. What exactly is meant by
  "Further provisions when damage continues over a period "?
  First of all, if one has a house in a mining area, and it has the misfortune to become affected by subsidence damage, the repairs are regarded as the original repairs. Thereafter, one can have temporary repairs, and apparently this can go on throughout the possession of the property. So long as the evils of recrudescence of subsidence exist, there seems to be no finality in the matter of repairs, and the owner is dependent on the State for permanent repairs to the house. This requires further explanation. The house has original repairs, then temporary repairs, and then permanent repairs. Is one entitled to have these permanent repairs maintained under the provisions of the Bill? Is there any finality in the business?
  Is this not turning the possession of a house of this character, which seems, at first sight, to be a grave disadvantage, into an advantage which is not obtainable in respect of any other houses in any other part of the country? It would seem to me that when these houses are being repaired, they will not be repaired in accordance with the old standards. Surely the houses repaired by the Coal Board will be repaired more adequately than was the case previously. If there are any refinements of construction these can be given to the person who has suffered this disadvantage. It seems to me that His Majesty's Government, although it may be unwittingly and with the best of intentions, are dealing with an evil but are also creating, at the same time, a remarkably priviliged class, and that the possession of property of this kind, which, before the Bill was introduced, was a very serious liability and a grave misfortune to the owners, may, under the terms of Clause 7, be now a possession of a very valuable character.
  7.15 p.m.
  The ordinary owner of a house is hard put to it to have the necessary repairs and
  1932
  maintenance carried out at present costs. The one-time unfortunate but now fortunate miner who owns his own house is going to be placed once again in a privileged class. The Clause confers upon persons who have houses damaged by subsidence the right of immediate repair, then of permanent repair and, ultimately, of repair ad infinitum. That is my interpretation of the Clause, and I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if I am wrong, and if there is a finality in this matter. Is there a time when the State says "You have had enough. We have spent £5,000 on your property, and now you can repair it yourself"? Is that contingency envisaged?
  Mr. McKie: I do not intend to occupy the time of the Committee for more than a few minutes. I think, however, that both sides of the Committee are entitled to a little more elucidation than we have yet had from someone on the Front Bench opposite. I have no desire to be offensive, although that was the word which the Parliamentary Secretary quite wrongly applied to the speech of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Robens: I do not mind offensive-ness, but I do not like unnecessary offen-siveness.
  Mr. McKie: I have no desire to be offensive in what I am about to say, and I hope that I shall keep strictly within the rules of procedure and the rules of ordinary Parliamentary Debate.
  I think that in view of the considerable apprehension that has been displayed, not only on this side of the Committee, that the Minister himself, or someone on behalf of the Government, should give us a further definition of what "permanent repairs" means. In passing, I would like to pay a compliment to the Parliamentary Secretary by saying that I thank him, and all my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee thank him, for what he has been able to do in a somewhat limited way to clear up the position by giving what he thinks is a definition of permanent repairs. That definition, however, does not satisfy me. I think that the time has arrived—and we have now been debating in this Committee for something like four hours—when we should have a Law Officer of the Crown here to give the Committee a definition of what are permanent repairs. Why should it be left to the lay Members of the Committee to say what

  1933
  interpretation the courts should place on these very important words?
  I am sorry that the Lord Advocate, who has been very consistent in his attendance up to now, saw fit, a few minutes ago, to leave the Chamber. No doubt we all have to go out at times to get sustenance, but we are sorry that the Lord Advocate has gone when there is no other Law Officer of the Government present on the Treasury Bench. I am amazed that throughout the proceedings of the Committee, as was the case last week, no Law Officer of the Crown, except the Lord Advocate, has been present, and in saying that I am not trying to be offensive to him or to anyone else.
  The question of the definition of permanent repairs raises a very big issue throughout the whole country. I and other hon. Friends are particularly concerned with what it may mean to Scotland, because there can be no question that there is a great deal of subsidence in Scotland. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I am glad to see here, knows that very well. I feel that if we had in this Committee the presence of the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), in whose area there is great deal of subsidence, he would not have been prepared to allow this point to go by very lightly.
  I do not share in their entirety the views which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) has just expressed about some people obtaining too much. I agree that we in this Committee have to be very much on our guard about what the taxpayers may be called upon to pay, but what we are considering at the present moment is predominantly—and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me—what we are to do for people whose property has been damaged, and which may in the future continue to be damaged. This Clause supplements what Clause 6 set out to do originally by making further provision where subsidence continues and is likely to go on for some time. That is how, owing to the drafting of these two Clauses, this unfortunate business has arisen.
  I am delighted to see that the Lord Advocate has now returned. The Parliamentary
  1934
  Secretary must take a large share of the blame for the way in which the Closure was moved on Clause 6, and for having been largely responsible for this Debate being initiated. I am not at all sorry that it has been initiated, because the longer the Debate has continued the more clearly it has been brought out what a big thing we should be doing if "permanent repairs" was thoroughly defined. If the Minister himself is not prepared to give us that definition, then let the Lord Advocate, who can speak not only on Scottish law but, in this case, on the English law, give us his interpretation.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 8.—(POWERS OF NATIONAL COAL BOARD TO EXECUTE PREVENTIVE WORKS.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. John Foster: I wish to raise a drafting point. I cannot understand what this Clause means. The object of the Clause is that the National Coal Board shall be allowed to carry out protective works if they get the consent of the owner. The provision applies also to cases where there are two owners. The Clause, quite naturally, provides that where one owner consents and the other does not consent, the National Coal Board can go in and do protective work in the house of the owner who consents. The question I am raising is the very odd wording. Perhaps it is that I am being rather stupid What the Clause says is that where an
  "owner has not withheld, or has not unreasonably withheld, his consent. …"
  Why does not the Clause state: "where the owner gives his consent"? Secondly, why is it necessary, in the event of the owner withholding his consent, to put in that he has "not unreasonably withheld his consent"? Surely it would be better if the Clause read, "where the owner has reasonably withheld his consent," which would cover the owner who has also unreasonably withheld his consent.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: I should like to have some elucidation on this Clause. The Clause provides that the National Coal Board can execute preventive works in cases.

  1935
  "Where it appears to the National Coal Board that subsidence damage is likely to occur to any dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or is likely to occur to any building comprising such a dwelling-house, and, if it occurs, to affect the dwelling-house, and that the execution of works in that dwelling-house or building would prevent the occurrence, or reduce the extent, of such damage, they may, with the consent of the owner of the dwelling-house or building, execute those works."
  Is it intended that any consideration shall be given to houses in the course of construction? Some of us who come from mining areas know that most wise local authorities take into account preventive works against subsidence. In Stoke-on-Trent we make such provision by putting in concrete rafts. We believe it is a good investment which will prevent repairs of an extensive character having to be made later in the lifetime of the house. Will the National Coal Board have powers under this Clause to extend their interest to cover such preventive works? Would it be possible to require local authorities to consider either putting in concrete rafts, or doing such other work as is disclosed by research to be of a useful character and to save a great deal of cost in the years ahead? Does the Clause provide for that?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I wish to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies). Today, I have been to the Lord Mayor's luncheon, where great concern was expressed about matters of this kind and great satisfaction about this Bill. Can we be assured that there will be the maximum co-operation between the local officials of the National Coal Board and the local authorities? It would be better, in our view, that preventive works should be undertaken so as to obviate any extensive damage occuring in the future.
  During this Debate I have heard hon. Members asking for assurances on various points, but we have learned from experience with the courts in the past that it is what is in the Bill that matters and not what is said in the House. Therefore, my view is that provision should be made in the Bill, between now and Report stage, to cover houses which are being built in mining areas, so that there will be the maximum co-operation between the officials of the National Coal Board, the
  1936
  builders and the local authorities. In most cases it would be advisable to put in concrete rafts, which would prevent heavy compensation having to be made at a later stage.
  Sir W. Darling: My criticism of the Clause is that the initiative arises with the National Coal Board. It provides that if the National Coal Board think that subsidence damage is likely to occur they may enter premises. I should have thought it was better for the house owner to go to his local authority and for the National Coal Board to make their entrance on the recommendations of the local authority. The National Coal Board cannot be criticised in the House, and this Clause gives them powers over property, if there remain any rights of private property these days which should be mitigated in the interests of the owners. The National Coal Board should not be the sole determining authority in regard to the right of entry. These powers should be limited in some way.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member can deal only with what is in the Clause. He cannot refer to what he considers should be in the Clause.
  Sir W. Darling: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Charles. I am dealing with what is in the Clause and endeavouring to suggest——
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is the point. The hon. Member is suggesting what should be in the Clause. We can discuss only what is in the Clause.
  7.30 p.m.
  Sir W. Darling: I was trying to persuade the Minister to make an alteration, but I was not so optimistic as to think I would succeed. However, apparently my suggestion is out of order, and I leave the matter where it stands. I deplore that under this Clause the National Coal Board cannot be challenged by the individual who may or may not give consent to their desires. I feel there is no protection for the public in this Clause. Perhaps we may hear from the Lord Advocate if there is any relevancy, in subsection (4), in the variation which is necessary, and whether he is satisfied that the Clause generally does not give undue authority to the National Coal Board over the free property-owning citizens of Scotland.
  Captain Duncan: This Clause, deals with the Coal Board's relations with owners of property which has been damaged or might be damaged by subsidence. What notice is to be given to the owners of their rights under this Bill? The houses are limited in size, with valuations fixed for England and Scotland. They are small houses owned by owner-occupiers, and these are the very people who do not know their legal rights. There seems to be nothing in this Bill or in this Clause adequately to inform the owner-occupiers of what their rights are.
  I am not quarrelling with that, but how are the owner-occupiers to know their rights? I am not concerned here with local authority owners, because they can find out how to obtain their rights from the many channels at their disposal. I am concerned with the owner-occupier. We have a particular case in Fife in Scotland, which is a development area, and where, by taking preventive action under Clause 8, we could save an enormous amount of subsidence. It is only right that there should be some provision in this Bill or in another so that the owner-occupiers will be fully acquainted with their rights. How do the Government propose that that should be done?
  The Lord Advocate: A variety of points have been raised on this Clause, and I propose to deal with them in the order in which they were made. The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) raised a point about the words in line 21:
  "… whose owner has not withheld or has not unreasonably withheld, his consent under this subsection."
  As the Committee will appreciate, the whole purpose of this Clause is to enable the National Coal Board to take preventive measures to stop damage being done to the houses, or to minimise the effect of any such damage as might occur. Not unreasonably, the Clause goes on to provide that if the Coal Board wish to take such steps and the owner of the house unreasonably withholds his consent to the Board's representatives entering the premises to effect such repairs, that owner forfeits any rights he might have under this Bill. I do not think that is an un reasonable proposition.
  1938
  Where we are dealing with the case of two or more owners in the one building and where the situation might arise of one owner giving his consent or having reasonable grounds for withholding his consent, he should not be prejudiced because another owner had not given his consent and had no reasonable grounds for withholding that consent. The proviso to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred merely says that the owner who has given his consent or has reasonably withheld that consent shall not be prejudiced because of the action of some other person.
  Mr. J. Foster: I do not think it says so. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at line 19, he will see the words,
  "this subsection shall not affect the carrying out of repairs. …"
  The person who has reasonably withheld his consent does not have any repairs done because he has reasonably withheld that consent. It cannot affect him.
  The Lord Advocate: Oh, no. There are two stages in the arrangement, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will see if he reads the Clause. One is the intention of the National Coal Board to execute preventive repairs, and the second is the duty of the National Coal Board to carry out repairs if damage has occurred. It is in respect of the latter rights that the person who has withheld, or withheld unreasonably, his consent forfeits the rights he otherwise might have by virtue of the other provisions of the Bill. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) raised the question of certain preliminary works that have been done in the construction of concrete rafts prior to the erection of a building. The Committee will appreciate that this Bill refers only to damage done to dwelling-houses, and I cannot conceive concrete rafts which are the preliminary to the erection of a house being deemed to be a dwelling-house within the meaning of the Bill. In so far as my hon. Friend sought an assurance that there would be full co-operation between the local authorities and any other interest concerned in such matters, my right hon. Friend the Minister has asked me to convey that assurance to him.

  1939
  With the greatest hesitation, because of our national kinship, I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) that having regard to your Ruling, Sir Charles, on his speech there is nothing to answer. The hon. and gallant Member for Angus (Captain Duncan) wanted to know how the owner-occupier or the owner would be certierated of his rights under this Bill. I think the simplest method of achieving that would be for him to read its provision, because if he does so he will know exactly what his rights are, and if he does not—sometimes people are known to have doubts as to what an Act of Parliament means—he can have recourse to a lawyer. It is that which keeps that section of the community alive, for people have sometimes to go to seek their advice with regard to legal matters. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that soon we hope to introduce the Legal Aid Scheme in England and Scotland, which will give advantages to these people which obviously they do not enjoy at the moment. So from every aspect of the matter it would seem that this Government are catering for the interests of these people.
  Captain Duncan: I am not satisfied with the Lord Advocate's answer to the point I raised. He is really telling the working man who owns his house to go to his lawyer.
  The Lord Advocate: No.
  Captain Duncan: His only qualification to that was that there will be cheap legal advice under the Legal Aid Scheme when it comes in. Surely, there must be some better method of getting this information over to the owner-occupiers than simply telling them to consult lawyers. In certain conditions this Clause takes away their rights. If they do not give their consent or unreasonably withhold it, their right to compensation for repairs to their houses goes. Therefore, under this Clause it is important that there should be cooperation from the National Coal Board at least by notices at the pithead or in some other way to inform the working miner who owns his own house what are his rights under this Bill.
  The Lord Advocate: I would think that the solution to that problem would be relatively simple. First, if the National
  1940
  Coal Board go and ask permission, as they will, to execute these preventive works, they will explain the matter.
  Captain Duncan: Will they?
  The Lord Advocate: Naturally if the consent is withheld—and the question only arises if the consent is withheld—they will explain that the owner may forfeit his right to compensation for any damage that may occur in consequence of subsequent damage if consent is unreasonably withheld. In any event he will have, if he is the sort of miner about whom the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus seems so concerned, recourse to his union for advice. That is one of the functions of the miners' union, to give advice of that nature to its members. No doubt he could seek advice from the local authority. There are many sources from which he could get advice. I merely suggested that, in the last analysis and if the problem became too complicated, he could go to a lawyer, which is always the last resort. [Interruption.] Yes, he could go to a Member of Parliament, but I am not in favour of blackleg labour and I prefer that he should go to a lawyer.
  It seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member is magnifying this problem. There is only one thing which needs to be explained to the gentleman in question, and it is that if he withholds his consent, which means that remedial works cannot be carried out, and if subsequently damage occurs to that house, he may be forfeiting his right to recovery under the Bill. That is a very simple matter to explain under the Clause, and that is how we are considering it at the present time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 11.—(GRANTS TO NATIONAL COAL BOARD.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Mainwaring: I should like to ask the Minister exactly what the Clause applies to. According to my reading of the Clause, the grants from the Treasury which it authorises are to meet
  "the additional expenditure incurred … by virtue"

  1941
  of the Bill. That would mean that the money thus provided has nothing to do with the existing obligations of the Coal Board but is purely for the additional obligation incurred by virtue of the Bill. If that is agreed to, I should like to have a statement from my right hon. Friend on the matter.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Main-waring) is perfectly right. The Clause does not in any way affect the existing £1 million per annum which the Board have now spent as a result of the obligations they had before the Bill becomes an Act. The money here provided is for claims which will arise exclusively under the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 12.—(DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS.)
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert:
  "(3) In proceedings with respect to any matter arising under this Act brought before any court in Scotland the court may, if it thinks fit, summon to its assistance at the proof or at any subsequent hearing, whether on reclaiming motion, or otherwise, a specially qualified assessor."
  The Amendment seeks to replace the existing subsection (3) by a new one. The original subsection provided that the sheriff court could summon to its assistance a specially qualified assessor in cases arising under the Bill. It may be that cases arising out of the Bill may find their way to the Court of Session, either in the . instance or by way of appeal. Accordingly, the Amendment seeks to extend that right to the Court of Session in order that that court may also summon an assessor to its assistance. At the present time the Court of Session can only summon an assessor on the joint motion of both parties.
  Sir W. Darling: When I saw this interesting Amendment on the Paper in the name of the Minister of Fuel and Power and on behalf of Scotland, I was more than usually grateful to him. The explanation that we have had from the learned Lord Advocate finally overcomes all my difficulties in this matter, because this is now a recognition that it shall
  1942
  be competent for any court to call in the services of a qualified assessor. This Amendment will make the Bill very much more valuable and I welcome it.
  Lord Dunglass: This proposal is not very usual, but it has been used with success in regard to shipping. I welcome this addition to the Bill because every court concerned with these cases will be grateful for having a mineral expert to advise them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 35, leave out "sheriff," and insert "court."—[The Lord Advocate.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 13.—(RIGHTS CONFERRED BY ACT TO BE ALTERNATIVE TO OTHER RIGHTS.)
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. M. Philips Price: I beg to move, in page 10, line 1, to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
  "(1) The right of any person under this Act to require the National Coal Board to carry out any repairs or to make any payment in respect of subsidence damage, is declared to be alternative to any right which the said person has apart from this Act to claim damages or compensation from the National Coal Boad in respect of that damage."
  I hope that this Amendment will clear up one point. It concerns the rights of small owners. I want to make it clear that not only will they have rights under the Bill but also rights under common law. It looks as if, once they have decided to use the power conferred by the Bill and if they should not be successful, they are barred from any rights they may have under common law. That will be a little hard. It is very difficult to determine always just what these rights are. The Turner Committee drew attention to that fact. Here is a passage which calls attention to the point:
  "Legal argument and the astuteness of lawyers have led to the attaching of immunerable varieties of conditions to the original deeds severing the underlying minerals from the surface. … Some of these deeds may have been made over 200 years ago."
  Further on, it says:
  "In a certain number of cases it is now impossible, even after the strictest investigation of title, either to trace the original deed of severance or to determine without litigation the present rights of the parties now concerned."

  1943
  In those conditions of uncertainty it is not quite fair to place upon a present owner the onus of choice how he will establish his rights.
  There is more than one respect in which the rights conferred by the Bill are less than might be obtained under common law. For instance, the Coal Board may decide to do only temporary repairs. That may have an effect upon the value of the property and the owner might expect to get better conditions under the common law. Again, suppose the Coal Board decide to undertake full repairs. They might not necessarily cover the whole value of the depreciation of the property such as the owner might expect to get under common law.
  It is desirable to allow a certain latitude here and to make it possible for small owners who cannot get what they think they are entitled to under one method to have the opportunity of getting it under the other. We should not tie an owner down to deciding in favour of this or of that method, and say to him: "If you fail under one, the matter is finished."
  Mr. Mainwaring: I fear that the Bill may be doing an injustice to holders of deeds which give them greater powers than are placed upon them by the Bill. There may be an injustice in the fact that the Bill asks them to elect within a certain time and in a certain matter irrespective of any need at the moment on account of damage. That in itself may lead large numbers of people to fail to observe the warning that they have to elect. I should hesitate to take away from them what may be a very material right. I prefer the suggestion that there should be alternative provision for them.
  Another point which I wish to raise arises from a question which I put on Clause 11. The subsection may bring within the Bill a whole class of people, owners of dwelling-houses with deeds of a certain character, who are, to begin with, outside the scope of the Bill, and, therefore, half the cost will fall on the Treasury instead of being the responsibility of the Coal Board. That is a contradiction of the advice given by the Minister that the Treasury grants to be provided under the Bill are solely for the purpose of meeting obligations which are not at present the obligations of the Board.
  1944
  The Minister has no idea how many thousands of people may be involved. Nobody knows the extent of this class of property owners with deeds protecting their rights. Yet this subsection proposes to bring these people within the ambit of the rights to be conferred by the Bill. Why are we talking about £500,000 a year? The subsection completely undermines the financial proposals of the Bill. I support the Amendment because it at least safeguards the rights of these people if they so choose and protects them against a failure to elect within a stipulated time. I should like to have the Minister's view on whether I am correct in believing that the subsection provides for the transfer of an obligation on the Board's own resources to a fund half at least of which is provided b Treasury grants.
  Mr. Higgs: The Amendment links up with one which was discussed on Clause 5, and it is impossible also entirely to separate one's argument from the argument on a subsequent Amendment in the name of the Minister. I would remind the Committee that earlier in the Debate the Parliamentary Secretary said that he hoped that the normal proceeding would be that when an owner or occupier discovered that his house had been damaged he would go straight to the nearest office of the Coal Board and get the appropriate form and fill it in so that the Coal Board would then know that damage had happened.
  We all want to see that happen, but if this Amendment were rejected and the next Amendment adopted, we should find that the moment the unfortunate owner, in the first excitement at the discovery of the damage, filled in that form he finished with his common law rights for good and all. The effect of the next Amendment is that the moment one tells the Coal Board that one's house has been damaged, one loses one's common law right. I commend very seriously to the Minister, if not the exact words of the Amendment, at least the very important point that if he does not take very great care he will be depriving people, quite without their knowledge, of a very much greater right which they already possess, and I am sure that that is not his wish.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I would say first in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for

  1945
  Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) that in our conception the Clause is intended only to apply to people whose rights are clear, known to them and beyond dispute. If their rights are doubtful we think that they are covered by the Bill, and it is one of the main purposes of the Bill to make quite certain that people whose rights are at present doubtful shall be covered. An Amendment which I propose to move in a moment will deal with that satisfactorily, I hope, as well as with other things.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) asked if the financial structure of the Bill was undermined by allowing people to transfer from existing rights to the new rights under the Bill. When I used the phrase that the money provided in Clause 11 was for obligations which arose out of the Bill I also included obligations towards those who chose to opt for the Bill as against their existing rights, and the estimate made includes options of that kind, which we do not expect will be on any great scale.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East, and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) have both raised the point that under the Bill as it stands a man with existing rights might lose both his existing rights and the rights under the Bill. That could happen in the following way. Under the Bill a man has an obligation to elect either for the Bill or for his existing rights within a given period. If he does not exercise that option and if he does not make a definitive act of election he is deemed to have elected for the rights under the Bill, but, having made no definitive action of any kind, when damage occurs, he may then fail to put in a notice to the Coal Board believing that his previous rights continue, being in ignorance of the fact that he ought to have elected and has not done so. In that manner both rights may disappear. An Amendment which I propose to move in a moment or two is intended to deal with that and I hope that hon. Members will consider that satisfactory. We do not, of course, intend to allow a situation in which both rights may be lost.
  The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West, as it stands would not be satisfactory to anybody and certainly not to the Coal Board. If a man was free in perpetuity
  1946
  to exercise either right without any restrictions on the time or the manner in which he made his choice the Coal Board would be put in a very difficult situation. It might begin a repair believing that the man would continue with his existing right and he might then elect otherwise, and they could be placed in very great difficulty in other ways. If a man is to exercise a right it should be quite clear that he does it definitely at a given time so that everybody, including the man himself, knows where he stands. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the Amendment and accept the Amendment which I propose to move shortly.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. M. Philips Price: I see the point of my right hon. Friend and, naturally, I would not like to see a situation arising in which the Coal Board did not know where they were. I am only trying to make it possible for the owner, if he cannot get compensation under the Bill for one reason or another, still to be able to use his common law rights. If my right hon. Friend thinks that under the Amendment he is about to move to line 6, that will happen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I beg to move in line 6 to leave out from "elect," to "whether," in line 7.
  If I may take this Amendment and the one to line 9 together, the second part of the subsection will read as follows:
  "… he may elect whether to exercise the right conferred by this Act or the other right aforesaid, and shall be bound by his election accordingly, and, if he gives a notice under subsection (1) of section five of this Act in respect of the damage, he shall be deemed to have elected to exercise the right conferred by this Act."
  That does not leave both rights open to the claimant; he must choose one or the other. Of course, on his form of claim, we can put a warning note to the effect that putting in a claim under Section 5 means that he is electing for the Act and thereby giving up his own rights. We can make that perfectly clear. This Amendment, which I hope my hon. Friend will regard as satisfactory, will, however, make it impossible for a man to lose both his rights, because, if he has alternative rights and he gives a valid notice under the Act, he will thereby elect to exercise his rights under it. If he does not give any valid

  1947
  notice under the Act, then he will not have any right under it but his old rights will go on. I hope, with that explanation, the Committee will accept the Amendment.
  Sir P. Spens: On the whole, I prefer the Clause in the Bill, for the following reason. When we had the discussion on the time limit for the notice of damage, everyone was agreed that it should be as short as possible, and the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned a month or six weeks. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if one is quite certain what are one's other rights, whether under a title or under common law, the same length of time is sufficient for a man to make up his mind whether to take his rights under this Bill or otherwise.
  But suppose a subsidence occurs to his house and it is the first occasion which has driven him to look into his rights and he goes to a lawyer. The lawyer will say, "You have certain rights under this Act. You have a month in which to give notice of claim but, under your title there are better rights against somebody else and this will involve an investigation of title which may take a substantial time." The man may, therefore, be driven at the last moment to say, "My time is nearly up, I must put in a claim under this Act, otherwise I shall lose my statutory rights." And by so doing he deprives himself of his common law or other contractual rights.
  For that reason I think it is a mistake to link up the term of the two notices. I am not at all sure that, under the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman is to make, it might not be possible to have a different time limit for the two. If, however, there is to be one time limit, a short time limit in which to give notice will produce a substantial number of hard cases of people who may be compelled to make up their minds on their complicated titles.
  I see the Lord Advocate sitting there. In my time I have investigated, to my sorrow, many titles to mining properties in this country. The Lord Advocate must know enough of English land law to realise how complicated it is to advise the owner of one small property of the rights, if any, he has to support him in his claim. Therefore, this requires a little further consideration.
  Mr. Mainwaring: May I ask the hon. and learned Member a question? In the circumstances referred to, of a doubt as to the precise extent of a man's rights under common law and his hesitancy about taking the rights conferred under this Bill, would it not be possible to meet that by a provisional warning to the Coal Board, because it would deal with both cases?
  Sir P. Spens: I can only deal with what is in the Bill, and I hope I have made my point clear to the Minister.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: May I answer that point at once? In the case which the hon. and learned Member envisages, under the regulations the man would clearly have a good case for an extension of time. The regulations will certainly provide for that. It will be a hardship case and I do not think it will be a common one. Of course the Coal Board would allow an extension; it would have to do so.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not certain that the right hon. Gentleman has met the case of my hon. and learned Friend. We have an Amendment on the Order Paper to line 6 which will fail in view of the Amendment moved by the Minister. That Amendment was designed to give a minimum period of six months to individuals in which to make up their minds as to which remedy they would seek if their house fell down. I heartily support the plea of my hon. and learned Friend that we should not try to get these two forms of notice tied up together simply for reasons of administrative neatness, because that is what is in the mind of the Government here.
  The two forms of notice are quite different. The one is that which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) dealt with on an earlier Clause, This one deals with the question of deciding which kind of right the owner is to choose. Under the second Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, a person may fall between the two stools. Take the case of someone who gives notice under this Clause and thereby, by implication, opts for his rights under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that there are certain defences open to the Coal Board in the event of a claim being made under this Bill, and it is perfectly possible that in a specific case

  1949
  the Coal Board will resist successfully under this Bill a claim which they could not have resisted if it had been made otherwise under the rights of that person. However, because he has served the notice under the earlier Clause, he will be forced to rely on his rights under the Bill, and he loses those by reason of the National Coal Board being able to set up a defence, and then he cannot have recourse to his other rights because he has opted himself against them.
  If the right hon. Gentleman says, "That is a hard case and we will have to deal with that specially," he is doing the very thing which he says he cannot tolerate, because he is leaving it open, after the end of all this litigation, for the National Coal Board to ascertain how they stand. If a claim under the Clause is to be a valid claim merely if it is substantiated, and if it falls on being considered, the other claim then crops up again and there will be exactly the ambiguity which the right hon. Gentleman says that he is trying to avoid by the Amendment.
  I do not think, therefore, that what the Minister is suggesting will really carry out the intention of the Government. I hope that he will look at this question again and will put down other Amendments in order to ensure that some quite definite and longer period of notice is given and that there is to be no implied giving of notice merely because action is taken under subsection (1).
  Mr. Higgs: I should like briefly to commend to the right hon. Gentleman the suggestion of his hon. Friend behind him, that instead of having one notice which tells the Coal Board that the damage has occurred but which also automatically binds the owner to his remedy under the Bill, there shall be first a simple notice, which could if necessary be called a provisional notice, which says no more than this: "Damage has occurred to my house and I shall do my best to make you pay for it under one or other procedure." The first notice could be given quite quickly, and a more generous time could be allowed in which to make all the research. Then a further notice could be given, that, "Having made my researches I now say that I base my claim under the Bill," or that, "I now say that I make my claim under common
  1950
  law because I think that that will make my case better." That is more or less the way in which the Bill was drawn up, subject only to reconsideration of the question of the time for the giving of the notice.
  Miss Jennie Lee: I am uneasy about this matter and perhaps the Minister, by further explanation, can clear up the difficulty. Constituents might come to us and ask what they ought to do, whether they should hold on to their existing protection or whether they should abandon that and make a claim under the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act. None of us is in a position to give that kind of legal advice. It would be rather reckless of us, in fact, if we offered to give it, even after a consideration of all the individual circumstances, and certainly we cannot give a broad "Yes" or "No."
  There is no doubt whatever about what is the intention of every individual who is affected: it is to keep for himself whatever he feels would be the wider and the more complete protection. Could there not be some form of wording which would take account of the fact that working people in particular—I mean people who are not acting through solicitors—find it very hard to make those decisions and thus do nothing at all until calamity is overtaking them. If we could give them the general assurance that when their home was in trouble they would have the protection of whatever was the wider scope for them, I think that that would be equity, because that is certainly what everyone would do who had proper legal advice.
  Mr. G. Lloyd: Before the Lord Advocate replies, may I draw his attention to this unusual coalition from the Midlands? The hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) are both stressing substantially the same point. All that I really want to ask is whether the Government, if they cannot make a concession now, would consider between now and the Report stage the very interesting suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove of the possibility of the double form of notice, which seemed to me to offer a way of escape from the possible difficulties of the present arrangement.
  8.15 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate: We are all very much obliged for the constructive suggestions which have been put forward in connection with the Amendment. In my opinion, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) raised, if I may respectfully say so, a false point when he drew attention to the fact that if a person elected to make recovery under one system, he might lose rights which he might have had under the other system of recovery. Of course, that always happens when an election is open to the individual, and we have had many examples of that in our law. The one which appeals to my mind directly is the election between workmen's compensation and common law damages.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That election can only take place wittingly and deliberately by the individual. The difference in the present case is that the election is to be done by implication.
  The Lord Advocate: With all due respect, no; because the Bill has to be read as a whole and not in isolated parts. If effect is given to these Amendments, the person owning a house which is affected by subsidence, who has a protective clause in his title but who also has the right of recourse to remedies under the Bill, will know that if he puts in a notice claiming his rights under the Bill, he has made his election and has thereby forfeited the rights which he would have had under the protective clause in his title.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is very doubtful.
  The Lord Advocate: I do not know why the hon. Member says, "That is very doubtful." It seems to me to be crystal clear. He is then certiorated of the fact that a man either takes his remedies under the Bill—and that he does by putting in his notice under Clause 5—or he seeks his remedy under the protective clause in his title. Having made that election, a house owner has to abide by it. I think that that disposes of this particular point.
  Then there is the other very difficult point as to whether or not the two periods should be identical. The argument in favour of identity of periods is this: that if there were two separate periods—and
  1952
  if there were one period under Clause 5 and a longer period under the present Clause—the result would be that although the Coal Board had received notice under Clause 5 that the person was claiming his rights under the Act, as it would then be, the Board could do nothing until the expiry of the later period, by which time the claimant has to opt. I think that that is undesirable, because it creates a vacuum during which nothing can be done. I think, therefore, that if we could get identity of periods, that would be much more desirable administratively.
  The point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) of whether the time allowed for the submission of notice under Clause 5 would be sufficient for what may be a rather long and careful scrutiny of the title in order to ascertain one's exact rights under the title deeds. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that titles can be very obscure, and that sometimes people even go to the length of submitting them to Counsel for elucidation. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained when dealing with Clause 5, however, when regulations are being made under that Clause special provision can be made for such cases. I would have thought that the appropriate method of dealing with this matter would be to deal with this particular type of case, where there are alternative remedies, in the regulations, specifying that a claimant who has such alternative remedies may be given an extended time in which to submit his notice under Clause 5.
  That seems to me to be the best administrative and the practical method, for this reason. If, as has been said earlier today, a definite period is written into the Act, if and when it eventually emerges, then that becomes inflexible, and in administrative experience it may transpire that the period is either too long or too short and requires an amending Bill to come before the House. Surely, if the same result could be effected through the regulations, and experience showed that the time should be either extended or shortened, then it could be done by the simple expedient of passing a new regulation.
  With the assurance that this type of case is typical of the special type of case which could be dealt with in the proviso which we have made in relation to the

  1953
  regulations, I trust that the Committee will accept the desirability of identity of time in respect of the notice which is given under Clause 5 and in the making of the election, leaving the flexibility to regulations in order to determine what the length of time should be in cases of this particular nature.
  Mr. Mainwaring: Would my right hon. and learned Friend kindly reply to this practical question, which relates to the future and not to the past? Suppose that an owner finds that his dwelling-house becomes damaged through subsidence. He wishes to get that subsidence compensated for or the repair work done by the Coal Board. The Coal Board is the only party he has to negotiate with whether it is under common law rights or under this Measure. First he has to notify the Coal Board that the damage has in fact occurred. What does it matter to the Coal Board whether at that moment he tells them that they will have to pay for it under the new Act, or under common law? I cannot see why it is necessary to have a complicated system when the Coal Board have been notified of the damage and if it takes two or three months for the owner to determine whether to take action under common law or under this Measure what does it matter?
  The Lord Advocate: It seems to me that the practical explanation is that if damage has occurred, obviously it is desirable that it should be repaired at the earliest possible moment, because deterioration might take place and it might be difficult to distinguish between the original damage and further damage. There should be no lacuna between the notice making the claim under the Act and the notice and election under this Clause.
  Sir P. Spens: May I add one point? As I said on Second Reading, I think one ought to remember that the main effect of this Measure is to give a right of repairs or compensation to all that class of property which under common law have no right at present. Therefore, this question only arises in respect of the much smaller section that have alternative rights. In those circumstances, although I am not altogether happy, and shall not be happy until I see the regulations, I think that on the whole the
  1954
  Committee ought not to assume that we are discussing the case of the greatest number of properties, but of the rather exceptional properties which have other rights besides what would be their statutory rights.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 9, leave out "fails to elect as aforesaid," and insert:
  "gives a notice under subsection (1) of section five of this Act in respect of the damage."—[Mr. Noel-Baker.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 14.—(REGULATIONS.)
  Colonel Clarke: I beg to move, in page 10, line 31, to leave out from "and," to the end of line 34, and to insert:
  "and no regulations shall be made unless a draft thereof has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
  This is a perfectly straightforward Amendment which should have been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), who unfortunately is indisposed. The question of Statutory Instruments is a matter in which he has always been very much interested. One curious thing is that, whereas in Clause 14, it is laid down that
  "any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament,"
  in another part of the Measure, in Clause 1, an affirmative Resolution is required. There is a certain conflict there. But there is also the general principle that in a Measure of this importance all Statutory Instruments should be under the affirmative procedure and none under the negative procedure. The Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, lays down the method and machinery of Statutory Instruments, but no indication is given of when one type should be used and when another should be used. That is left, apparently, to the draftsmen or the Department concerned.
  Although I have referred to several books, including Erskine May, I could not find a distinction of the circumstances in which one procedure should be used or the other. Generally speaking, I think that on matters of lesser importance the negative procedure is usually followed. For example, in today's Votes and Proceedings there is an Instrument which

  1955
  says that a copy of the prescribed Order dated 17th May, 1950, which authorised the landing of one European bison at the port of Harwich, is to lie on the Table. I quite see that that is an Instrument which could come under the negative procedure. But in a Measure of this importance the affirmative Resolution procedure should be adopted and I hope that a change will be made.
  With an affirmative Resolution there is a better chance of debate. It comes up at a reasonable time, whereas everyone knows that Prayers usually come on at very unreasonable hours. Also, whereas a Prayer very often starts in a bad atmosphere, an affirmative Resolution may be discussed in a much more moderate and reasoned debate. That is the sort of debate we want on anything which arises under a Measure of this kind, which is not a matter of party, but one in which all parties are striving to produce the best results. We would get much more reasoned and moderate debates under the affirmative than under the negative procedure in regard to Statutory Instruments.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Of course, we are in full agreement with the hon. and gallant Member that on almost all really important matters of policy and substance in such a Bill as this, if an order is to be made it should be by affirmative Resolution. That is why the proviso to Clause 1, to which he referred, lays down that the affirmative Resolution shall be used because a change in the rateable value of a house coming within this Bill would be a matter of real substance and great importance. But this Clause deals only with the details of the machinery by which notice shall be put in. Since the Committee have agreed to the Amendments I moved to Clause 13, notices under that Clause disappear and there are only notices under Clause 5.
  Under Clause 5 the Regulations to be made will prescribe the time within which and the manner in which a notice must be given to the Board of subsidence damage and the price to be included. That is under Clause 5 (1). Under Clause 5 (2) the Regulations will prescribe the manner in which a notice is to be given to the Board by an owner who proposes to carry out repairs himself.
  1956
  8.30 p.m.
  It is clear that this is really only a detailed matter of machinery. It would be contrary to all reason, doctrine and precedent to require an affirmative Resolution for such things. Of course, they are all open to Prayer, and are all subject to scrutiny by the committee which, I think, is called the Scrutiny Committee and which looks at all Orders and Regulations. If we had affirmative Resolutions for such matters as these, I venture to suggest that our Parliamentary Business would be congested in a way which we should all find intolerable.
  Mr. Powell: I think that the Minister has very much under-estimated the importance of the Regulations which will come under this Clause. At an earlier stage in the Debate today, there was a lengthy discussion on Clause 5, and the Committee only parted with that Clause upon the understanding that the Regulations referred to would contain substantial safeguards. We have not, of course, yet seen the Regulations; but the safeguards, both to provide for exceptional cases where longer notice will be admitted, and to enable cases of damage which happened prior to this Bill, but since 1st January, 1947, to be brought within the scope of compensation, depend upon these Regulations. I think, therefore, that the Committee should recognise that these Regulations, though perhaps not quite so important as those made under Clause 1, are such as this House should have the opportunity of examining with a thoroughness which only the affirmative Resolution permits. I venture to hope that, even now, the Government will undertake to reconsider this matter.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has said. I think that the Minister has been rather skating over this matter, because Clause 1 is the major point on which claims can be made. It has been agreed on both sides of the Committee that the people who are going to make these claims will be small owners, people who have no large organisation to press their cases, or to make someone move a Prayer to annul a Regulation. It will be very difficult for such people, in the circumstances proposed by a negative procedure, to know anything about what is going to happen

  1957
  until the particular Regulations have become law. If it is of sufficient importance for the procedure under Clause 2 concerning ratings to be subject to an affirmative Resolution, surely it is even more important that the claims of small people who are to be subject to Clause 5 should be submitted to the same procedure.
  I cannot see why there should be any difference between the principle which governs the determination of award and the conditions under which the people are to receive that award. Where we admit one, there we ought to admit the other. The Minister's argument was very weak when he said that these matters, which affect not only the conditions in which but the time within which these claims could be made, are simply going to be subject to a negative Resolution, and that it was insufficient to satisfy this Committee. I suggest to hon. Members opposite—who know far more than I do about the conditions covering the type of claim that is going to be made—that they should be as anxious as we are to see that every person is given the time and the opportunity to make a case. That can only be guaranteed if we have an affirmative Resolution. If we leave it to the negative Resolution, it is bound to be left to somebody on either side to raise it by means of a Prayer.
  We are dealing with poor people who often do not see these things until they are passed and have become law. We all know what happened under the Town and Country Planning Act. It is far better that we should lay down the safeguard that the Minister, when he proposes to do something affecting these people, must come to the House and move an affirmative Resolution instead of leaving it for someone to pick up the matter and deal with it by way of a negative Resolution.
  Mr. Oliver: The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosth-waite-Eyre) appears to attach some importance to Regulations made under Clause 1, but it seems a rather strange point to make that all Regulations should be treated alike, those which deal with major matters and those which deal with minor points. The whole purpose of affirmative and negative Resolutions is to deal differently with Regulations of different importance.
  1958
  The affirmative Resolution that falls under Clause 1 relates to a matter of some substance. The Regulation under Clause 14 may contain a number of important things, but the negative Resolution does not preclude hon. Members raising any point in which they are interested. If the Regulation contains something which they feel ought not to be there, they are not debarred from raising the matter.
  If the course proposed would deprive hon. Members of some of their rights, I should be in favour of the affirmative procedure, but in this case on the assumption that the Regulation will appear, why should a Debate be initiated on a matter on which no one is prepared to disagree? If the regulations contain matter on which there is general agreement, why should they not go through the House without debate? Members opposite suggest that whether the Regulations contain matters of importance or not a Debate should be initiated. They have not drawn a correct distinction between affirmative and negative Resolutions and the purpose of the two types.
  Mr. Bracken: I greatly regret the absence of the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) from the Front Bench. He is suffering from some of the disadvantages of not having been at the London School of Economics and at both Eton and Harrow. Such persons are quickly dropped from the Government. In an indirect way he rather supported the view of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). Never since Moses struck the rock and found water has there been anything more remarkable than the conversion achieved by my hon. and gallant Friend, because the Minister now says that, on the whole, he is in favour of the affirmative technique. That is important to this House. Despite the fact that the hon. Member for Ilkeston, in his own loyal way, tried to support the Government, he knows perfectly well there is the sharpest of differences between the two.
  I feel, however, that as we have converted the Minister—and we are more than willing to baptise hon. Gentlemen in platoons, if necessary, to our point of view—we ought not to dwell too long on this. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), having achieved such good work,

  1959
  will soon, if he has your eye, Sir Charles, address the Committee.
  I want to end on a very small point. It is that we have had two Ministers sitting here all the afternoon. The kitchen resources of the House of Commons are not, perhaps, as good as we want, and I notify one or other of the Ministers that they should go and have something to eat, because we are going to deal with a Prayer soon, and party demands that they should be present. One or other might take some refreshment now. I am doing this out of humanity. It has nothing to do with the contents of the Bill.
  Colonel Clarke: I think this short Debate has had the desired effect of impressing upon the Committee the importance that where possible, in a matter of this sort, the Statutory Instrument should be by affirmative Resolution. Sometimes that may not be the case. But with the assurance which the Minister has given, that he appreciates the importance of using the affirmative method wherever possible, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 15.—(INTERPRETATION.)
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: On a point of order, Sir Charles. I understand that it is likely that you will rule out of order certain Amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) and other hon. Friends of mine, on the ground that they go outside the Money Resolution attending this Bill. Before you call an Amendment which would necessarily make one of those Amendments a thing of the past, I should like to ask whether you would perhaps reconsider your attitude to this matter in the light of certain considerations which I hope to be able to put to you.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I may give my view first. The first Amendment to which the hon. Baronet refers is in Clause 15, page 10, line 44, to insert:
  "'curtilage' shall include one-half of any road not repairable by the inhabitants at large on which a dwelling-house abuts so far as the same is co-terminous with the frontage of such curtilage to that road."
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Yes.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is out of order because it goes beyond the Money Resolution. It goes beyond the garden into the middle of the road. I do not select the Amendment to page 11, line 25, to insert:
  "' repairs' in the case of a dwelling-house includes decoration."
  because it is unnecessary. The Amendment to page 11, line 27, after "structure," insert:
  "or to the surface of any land within the curtilage of such building or structure."
  is out of order for the same reason as the first one.
  Mr. Bracken: On a point of order, Sir Charles. While we do not claim to be intellectual giants—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am glad to receive the endorsement of hon. Members opposite—so far as we can discover, the Amendment does not seem to us to put any charge on the Revenue.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Which Amendment is the right hon. Gentleman referring to?
  Mr. Bracken: The Amendment to line 27. I understood you to say that it would increase the burden on the Treasury. Of course, it is not open to Private Members so to do. When you have been acting as Deputy-Speaker, Sir Charles, you have seen from time to time Ministers denying that they have any responsibility for the expenditure of the Coal Board. In my humble submission, we are well within the rules of the House by asking you to consider this Amendment. It is a very complicated matter. All the Speakers of the past, if revived, could never really reconcile the statements of the Government. The Government say at one period of this Debate that they are not responsible for the Coal Board, and on the other hand they say "We will put pressure on the Coal Board." My submission is that the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) hopes to move is in order because it does not put any charges on the Treasury. It puts charges on the Coal Board for which the Government claim they have no responsibility.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, I see that point, but there is a Money Resolution.

  1961
  I think the Resolution applies quite clearly to what money can be spent under this Bill.
  8.45 p.m.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I desire to address you on that point, Sir Charles. If you look at the wording of the Money Resolution you will see that it refers first of all to the Title of the Bill and to damage affecting certain dwelling-houses. I suggest that as far as that is relevant, it means that any damage affecting them in any degree whatsoever is within the Title of the Bill, and therefore within the terms of the Money Resolution. The Resolution continues to authorise
  "payments in respect of subsidence damage to any dwelling-house to which the said Act applies"
  and that damage is quite unlimited. It may be direct, it may be indirect, it may be to any degree of remoteness; there is no qualification in that respect whatsoever.
  There is a definition at the end of the Money Resolution. If that is the governing definition then I submit that I am right in my contention, for this reason, that we have heard that 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."
  In other words, it is not limited to that; it includes that. Here are definite items of damage not to the house itself but to matters specifically outside the house.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I have obliged the hon. Member by giving my Ruling in advance and it would be impossible to discuss all the Amendments at once. I will deal with them one by one as they arise. The first Amendment I rule out of order because it is beyond the Money Resolution.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page II, to leave out lines 8 and 9, and to insert:
  "'hereditament' means—

  (a) in England and Wales, a hereditament which is separately valued for rating purposes;

  1962

  (b) in Scotland, lands and heritages within the meaning of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, which are separately valued for rating purposes."

  This is a drafting Amendment in order to incorporate the Scottish legal terms for the English terms in this Bill. Where the word "hereditament" is used in the English sense, we seek to substitute the Scottish expression "lands and heritages." That is the purpose of the Amendment.
  Mr. Bracken: Sir Charles, you need no reminding that the Scots are good all the way through, that they are very restive under the present Government and that a bone has to be thrown to them from time to time, because these Covenanters are ferocious creatures. I, therefore, feel that anything we can do for Scotland—and there is a very little we can do, with the Government taking control of everything that affects Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "A dissertation."] It is a dissertation all right, because someone must stand up for the Scots as well as for the miners.
  On the whole, I think there is nothing very much wrong with the Lord Advocate's brief explanation. There is, however, something wrong with his performance. It is now a quarter of an hour since I invited him to go and have a bowl of porridge, or whatever Scotsmen have in the evening. He has sat there all day long. The Ministers really ought to go—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—we have a right to make this suggestion. I know back benchers do not like their leaders and I do not mind that very much. We can do with only one Minister here for the time being. I thank the Lord Advocate for his explanation and I think, in the interests of Scotland, he ought to have a meal.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I wonder whether it would be convenient for the Lord Advocate to say something at this stage about the various undertakings which were given by the Minister on this question of what would constitute a separate hereditament. I would not wish to press it, but he might feel that this is a convenient moment to make a statement.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 11, line 22, after "list," to insert "or, in Scotland, the valuation roll."

  1963
  This is a purely drafting Amendment in order to incorporate another Scottish term, "valuation roll," which is the equivalent of the "valuation list."
  Mr. Bracken: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Member for his very brief explanation of the terms and all we can say is, "Scotland for ever."
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I do not select the next Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), in page 11, line 25, at the end, to insert:
  "'repairs' in the case of a dwelling-house includes decoration."
  It is not necessary.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If I may make a submission to you, Sir Charles, on the next two Amendments——
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman accepts that the Amendment is not necessary?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am now speaking of the next two.
  The Deputy-Chairman: One at a time, please.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I should like to move, in page 11, line 27, after "structure," to insert:
  "or to the surface of any land within the curtilage of such building or structure."
  I was going to say that this and the next of our Amendments, in page 11, line 31, after "caused," to insert "directly or indirectly" are alternatives in a sense. If you could see your way, Sir Charles, to call the latter, it would include the first. It may be, if I could make a submission to you on that, that you will see that it is not possible to discuss this Bill without discussing some such Amendment. Let me draw your attention to the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, when I interrupted the Minister in the course of his speech.
  The Deputy-Chairman: With which Amendment is the hon. Gentleman dealing now?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: With the earlier one of the two I have mentioned. In that Debate I asked this:
  1964
  "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, and other incidents of that kind?"
  The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Yes, Sir; it will certainly do that."
  Then, perhaps rather rudely, I said:
  "It does not."
  To which the right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "We will look into that point in Committee, but I am advised that it will."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 802.]
  Here we have a pledge from the Government that we should discuss in Committee this kind of point where damage is not done to the house itself, but is done to the surface of the land on which the house stands.
  The Deputy-Chairman: No doubt, if I had called the Amendment, the Government would have been willing to speak on it, and to accept or reject it; but I am not prepared to call it.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If that is your Ruling, Sir Charles, of course I must bow to it; but I would ask whether our rights may be protected, and I would protest against having been misled by the Government, and, perhaps, I may have an opportunity of doing so on the Question that the Clause stand part.
  The Deputy-Chairman: It may be that I have misled the hon. Gentleman. However, I think the Amendment is outside the Money Resolution.
  Mr. Bracken: On a point of order. Nobody on this side of the Committee would accuse the Chair of misleading anyone but in point of fact we are more than willing to accuse the Government of that, because that is what they have done. They gave us an assurance which now they cannot fulfil. By the time we have finished with this Bill, hon. Members interested in the matter of subsidence will have to hire submarines from Tobermory, or one of those places, in order to go to look at the consequences. I think that, perhaps, it would be asking the Chair to go beyond its duties to remind the Minister of his promises, but, nevertheless, on undertakings given by members of the Government we have accepted or allowed to pass a number of Amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has pointed out that if——
  Mr. Messer: Order.
  Mr. Bracken: This is a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the Chairman's place he will have to have greater popularity in the House and the Committee. All I wish to say now, with all respect to you, Sir Charles, is that, although it may be inevitable in our procedure, nevertheless, it will make nonsense of the Government's promises if my hon. Friend has not the right to deploy the merits of this Amendment and to discuss points which the Minister had led us to suppose would be discussed in Committee.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment on page 11, line 31, after "caused," to insert "directly or indirectly," and the next, in page 11, line 32, after "support" to insert "whether such support be lateral or vertical," are outside the Money Resolution, which defines subsidence damage, and I do not select them. The next Amendment selected is that in page 11, line 33.
  Mr. Higgs: I am afraid that I am going to trouble the Chair in another respect to seek your guidance, Sir Charles, not for the first time. In the last hour or so it has been pointed out that this Amendment goes a good deal further in the wrong direction than in the right. It was put down for the purpose of seeking an assurance from the Minister, and I do not know whether formally to move the Amendment now or to raise the matter on the Question that the Clause stand part. I am entirely in your hands, Sir Charles, as to which you think is more convenient.
  I beg to move, in page 11, line 33, after "getting" to insert:
  "by the National Coal Board or their lessees or licensees."
  This Amendment is moved because we wish to invite the Minister to make it perfectly clear that this Bill and the remedies it provides apply not only to cases where houses suffer subsidence damage as a result of workings by the National Coal Board itself, but also to cases where subsidence damage occurs as the result of working in a pit which is either leased or worked under licence from them. I do not think it requires my saying anything else but to ask the Minister for that assurance, except perhaps to observe that it so happens that
  1966
  the law is such that pits which are worked under licence or lease are usually small pits and old pits, and are often in areas where mining has gone on at several different levels. It is very often found, in my experience, that that mining is underneath congested areas on the surface. There is, therefore, a very much greater damage potential—if I may use the expression—in these small pits which are worked under licence than there is in the larger and perhaps newer pits which have been started more recently. It is for the purpose of asking the Minister whether he could give us that assurance that this Amendment is moved.
  Mr. Robens: The Committee will probably remember that when the question of opencast mining was raised this same point was discussed at the same time, when I indicated that it would not matter who worked the coal; if subsidence damage was caused, under the terms of this Bill the National Coal Board would have to accept responsibility for the repairs or the payment. I think that covers the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Higgs: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Robens: I beg to move, in page 11, line 37, at the end, to insert:
  (2) For the purpose of this Act subsidence damage shall be deemed to occur or to have occurred at the time when evidence of the damage first appears or appeared.
  We have put down this Amendment because on Second Reading we had an argument about the meaning of the words "damage occurred." We said that we would, after consultation, insert other words, and we therefore seek to insert this subsection in the Interpretation Clause. I think these words are clear in their meaning, and if one takes them together with the Clause itself I am certain that it puts the matter beyond doubt.
  Mr. Bracken: What is the real meaning?
  Mr. Robens: The words are clear:
  "For the purpose of this Act subsidence damage shall be deemed to occur or to have occurred at the time when evidence of the damage first appears or appeared."
  There can, I think, be no question as to when the damage occurs, or is manifest, or is seen, or there is evidence of it. As

  1967
  soon as there is evidence of damage liability arises, and if that is within the period laid down—after 1st January, 1947—it comes within the Bill. This Amendment has been put down in order to meet the argument raised on Second Reading, to clear up what might be an ambiguity.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Bracken: I am sure that the Minister meant well when he said that he had found a new form of words in an attempt to fulfil our hopes. I have been trying to parse that sentence as read by the Minister, and I have had a good look at it in writing. It strikes me as being hardly grammatical. I do not know the meaning of the words, and I do not think that the Minister does either. I am sure that they express a good intention, but they are not very clear, and I am wondering what exactly the judges and others who have to interpret them will say about them. As the Minister no longer has to keep his unfortunate civil servants up all night—this night being an exception—surely they could have a good look at this and construct a better English sentence. I am no grammarian, but as a student of Fowler, one of the greatest grammarians, I cannot make anything out of this sentence, and while we raise no particular objection to it, we think that he might read one of the best books I have read, issued by the Treasury to civil servants, "How to Write English." I suggest to the Minister—and this is not a party matter—that that part of the Clause should be re-written because, like the peace of God, it passeth all understanding.
  Sir P. Spens: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have attempted to do. Whether they have done it in the best English, I am not prepared to say, but what I am reasonably sure of is that instead of the very indefinite phraseology of "occur" and "occurring" we have now something which any county court judge, the Coal Board and anybody else will be able to understand. Instead of the possibility of unknown, unseen occurrences in the foundations, we have now to look for something that is apparent. Some one said to me, "Suppose one of the houses was inherited by a blind man, how would he know that the damage had occurred?" Of course
  1968
  that is not the meaning of this phrase at all. It means any ordinary person using their ordinary senses would be able to say either by eyes or touch that something had happened to the structure.
  I am a little more doubtful when we know that structural damage has occurred to drains and other things underground, but I understand that a very good authority in the person of the right hon. Gentleman says that, at any rate, there will be something which will become apparent to some of the senses very quickly, and that will be accepted as apparent evidence of the damage that has occurred. I think that the Bill to that extent is better than it was, and all I can say is that, disappointed as I am at its contents, I think that in this respect it is slightly better than in the form in which it was introduced.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand pan of the Bill."
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I desire to raise a question which we have so far been precluded from raising by reason of the way in which the Money Resolution was drafted and the terms of the Clause as it stands. The kind of case we have in mind, about which there is anxiety in all parts of the Committee, is the case where damage occurs to a building which is not of a purely structural character, but which may be far more damaging than perhaps the collapse of the roof or one of the walls.
  The sort of case to which I am referring is that where, perhaps owing to the extraction of many feet of coal beneath the building, the level at which it is built subsides for a distance of as much as 20 feet, leaving the principal features, railway lines, canals and other such objects, protected on pillars of coal, as a result of which the building loses not only its aspect, its light and its air, but also its capacity to remain dry. In many cases, it is possible to make some arrangements to keep the worst of the water away, but it means that a building which was originally dry may become a dirty, wet little place sunk in a hollow in the ground as a result of mining subsidence.
  Members opposite who represent mining constituencies know very well that there are such places in practically every

  1969
  constituency where substantial subsidence has taken place. If the building falls down—and the owner will pray that it will do so—he will be entitled to compensation, but if it remains standing, as a great many of these buildings do remain standing perfectly well, no compensation is possible under the Bill as it stands.
  There is another class of case, perhaps not so serious, where no compensation will be paid, and that is where some serious damage affects the surface of the land immediately contiguous to the building. I think it was the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) who delighted the House with a complete description of how a railway train was completely swallowed up in the ground as a result of mining subsidence. Where something of that sort takes place right on the doorstep of a house, it must obviously affect the value very greatly indeed. Everyone knows that, where serious subsidence takes place which affects not the house itself, but the immediate neighbourhood of the house, there is a very serious loss to the owner. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should go to endless degrees of remoteness. I am not suggesting that because there is subsidence in a neighbourhood which has a depressing effect on property, the owners should be compensated. That would be going too far.
  We are not dealing here with houses with several acres of ground. The curtilage of a £32 house is not very great. They are usually houses with a doorstep and a backyard. That is the type of property with which we are here dealing. When there is subsidence which seriously affects these curtilages, it is reasonable for the Government to say either that compensation should be paid, or that the damage should be put right to the best possible extent. Whatever the Government may say, I am quite satisfied that the Bill does not cover that type of case, either of flooding or damage to the immediate curtilage of a house, and I ask them to look at the matter again. You, Sir Charles, would have ruled out of order any Amendment on this matter on the ground that the Financial Resolution is too narrowly drafted, so that we cannot do anything here. It is for the Government to review the situation, and I hope that they will do so before it is too late and before this Bill gets a bad name, which it will get if it perpetrates injustices.
  Mr. Redmayne: I should like to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said in this matter of the definition of curtilage, which has been mentioned before. I understand, Sir Charles, that you would not accept an Amendment which asked for a definition, but at the same time I feel that we could be given a verbal definition which would achieve something of what we want. In many areas, particularly in mining areas, curtilage includes the services of those houses, which are usually terrace houses. They run at the back of these houses, and therefore the curtilage covers all the services to the house. In more newly developed areas, the services run in the centre of the road facing the houses, and it is absolutely vital for the purposes of this Bill that compensation should include full cover for the services in the centre of the road. I hope we shall at least have a statement from the Minister on that point.
  One other matter which has been raised again is the making up of private roads, which should be regarded as being part of the curtilage of the houses that the Bill covers. I should be wrong, too, if I did not deal in some small degree with the matter of indirect damage, if only because my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) is not here. He is suffering from subsidence of the tonsils. The point I wish to make has been simply put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South. We must at lease consider it, and ask the Minister to make a statement in regard to subsidence damage caused by the fall in the land which can affect many buildings normally dependent on a dry and level surface. My hon. Friend has already dealt with the subject of flooding in sufficient detail, and I need not weary the House by repeating it. We have heard it before in debate on this Bill. The Minister himself has made statements about flooding, some good, some bad; the Parliamentary Secretary has made statements, nearly all bad. I ask them to bring within this problem of flooding, damp basements, ruined greenhouses, garages, and so forth.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I only want to say a word or two. Firstly, I should like to deal with the pipes outside the curtilage, though I think that matter is out of order.

  1971
  In the ordinary way, the Coal Board are to carry out repairs inside the curtilage, but they will go on and do the few feet into the road. However, I do not think we could in this Bill include the part outside the curtilage as a definite obligation.
  With regard to flooding, it is quite true that it is possible to conceive a case where dampness will make a house very unpleasant and structurally damaged. The purpose of this Bill is to deal with structural damage. As a rule persistent damp will effect structural damage. If the subsidence has been many feet below, there must be structural damage as well. Where it is simply damp and nothing else, it is not a case for repair but for land drainage. That is really outside the purpose of this Bill, and I am afraid we could not include it.
  Mr. Bracken: It is rather sad to hear that speech from the Minister, who has been very amiable so far. I know the right hon. Gentleman wants something to eat.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I have had something, thank you.
  Mr. Bracken: The right hon. Gentleman is a meagre feeder, but I do beg of him to recognise that the consequences of subsidence are completely unpredictable. The right hon. Gentleman shares the same experience as some of my hon. Friends, who understand the consequences of subsidence merely because of mining training. It is very hard to discover the exact effects of subsidence caused by water.
  9.15 p.m.
  I have personal experience in this matter. Not long ago, in a part of the world I will not mention, in opening up a mine we drove water apparently seven or eight miles away from the mine. The local farmers kicked up such a hullabaloo that they might have been Scottish Covenanters. We were faced with plenty of threats of writs, etc. Now, the farmers are thanking us because this particular water is growing crops—but I am never so sure of farmers' gratitude. I am wondering—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), wish to say something? Apparently he is being funny to himself. A
  1972
  joke in the hon. Member's mouth is not a laughing matter. I heard some noise which was hardly English from the hon. Gentleman sitting opposite. If he could interpret it to me in clearer language, I might possibly answer him.
  Mr. Daines: The right hon. Gentleman said that he was proceeding to reason, and I asked "What with"?
  Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman, as a wit, is the heaviest thing experienced in this Committee. He ought not to make jokes unless he can explain himself in lucid English. Even then, I doubt whether that would be good in his case We have got along very well on this Bill today. It may be that we are too meticulous, but we are a bit doubtful about this point and we think the Minister ought to look at it again. He has some very good advisers. They are overworked, but we would be satisfied if they could carefully consider the case put to them so well by my hon. Friend. There will be another stage of the Bill and I feel sure that those advisers could find words that would please us all. We are not unreasonable. All we want to do is to improve the Bill, but that is very hard work. We are trying to improve this poor Bill. If the Minister will give us an assurance that he will meet us on the point, we could get on a little further.
  Mr. Redmayne: I should like to put to the Minister, in connection with what he has just said, a point which he made in the Debate on the Financial Resolution. He said:
  "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1812.]
  I should like to have an assurance that if the foundations do not perform their function, that is to say, if they have gone, thereby allowing the house to become damp, the case will be covered by the Bill.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the Minister give us an answer? Here is a case put forward by the Minister which covers most of the remarks which have been made. If he is now going to say that the Bill cannot substantiate what he

  1973
  has said we have been led astray. If it does, will the Minister tell us under which Clause the safeguard provision comes?
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: What I said on the Financial Resolution was perfectly clear. I have examined it since and I stand by it. It was that if there was any dispute about any such matter the owner or the occupier could go to the courts.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: That does not seem to cover the case at all. A person can go to the courts under the Bill whether he has a justifiable claim or not. Does the Minister say that what he said means that a person with that type of case has a remedy against the National Coal Board? If he did mean that, under which Clause and which subsection does he say that claim can be substantiated? If he is merely saying that if this sort of thing happens, somebody can go to the courts and the Bill will turn it down, he has not advanced our case any further.
  Mr. Bracken: I feel—[Interruption.] Tonight is not dark and I am not far from home and I tell hon. Gentlemen opposite who want to interrupt that we are going to ask the Minister for a clear answer. The Minister now tells us that if anybody has any grievance he can go to the courts. We do not want the right hon. Gentleman's permission to do that. If the right hon. Gentleman will remember, during the discussion on the financial Clauses of the Bill I had, I think for the first time in my life, to use some rather harsh words about the language which he used when he said that there was not very much in foundations shifting. I pointed out to him in a reasonably logical way that shifting foundations were not really things upon which one could depend.
  My hon. Friends do not want to waste time. They are anxious to improve the Bill, and I think that the Minister should give them a clear undertaking about the matter. It is no good saying that we can go to the courts. If we could only get to the courts often enough and if the Government would stop legislating, how happy the country would be. We still have the right to go to the courts without the permission of the Minister of Fuel and Power or anybody else.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Assuming that the Bill is not passed, under what law could that hypothetical case be taken to the courts.
  The Deputy-Chairman: We are now considering Clause 15. The Committee is getting out of order. We are only dealing with the question of interpretations under Clause 15.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am sorry, Sir Charles, but this is a very important point——
  The Deputy-Chairman: Does it arise on Clause 15? If it arises on Clause 15 I will call the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Otherwise I will not.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: With great deference, Sir Charles, I understood that you had allowed subsidiary matters to be discussed at this stage. If am wrong I will not, of course, continue.
  The Deputy-Chairman: We are dealing with Clause 15 at the moment and it is a very narrow debate on the Question that the Clause stand part. If the hon. and gallant Member will keep to Clause 15 I shall be very glad.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: With great respect, I do not think I am out of order because the definition of subsidence damage occurs in the Clause. We have merely asked that the Minister should give an interpretation of a very specific undertaking which he gave on an earlier stage of the Bill, and he has ridden it off tonight by saying that one can go to the courts. We feel that something rather more concrete is needed and we have asked him to say under which Clause this is permissible. Again, referring to the definition of subsidence damage, we ask the Minister under which head he is able to make good the guarantee which he has given. If, of course, it is not in the Bill—and in fact this guarantee is not there—all we ask is that he should put it in the Bill at a later stage, but I think that either the Minister should substantiate that or give an undertaking to deal with it later, whichever he prefers.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: If the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, had not intervened, I was about to rise and say this. What I said on the Financial Resolution about flooding was perfectly clear but I repeat it. If flooding causes structural damage, and it can be shown that subsidence is the

  1975
  direct cause of the flooding which causes the structural damage to a house, then there is a claim under the Bill.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I quite agree that the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry but this is an important point. Would the Minister say under which Clause——
  The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot allow the Minister or anyone else to discuss other Clauses. We are on Clause 15 now.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I quite agree, Sir Charles, but if you will look at Clause 15 you will see that it defines subsidence damage. All I am asking is that within the terms of that definition where can the Minister give this assurance? If he can tell us, I am perfectly happy but, at the moment, we have only a bald assurance with no corroborative statement from the Minister. Perhaps he will give it to us.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: It is perfectly clear in Clause 15 itself:
  "'subsidence damage' means structural damage caused by the withdrawal of support from land as the result of the working and getting of coal. …"
  If this withdrawal of support causes flooding and the flooding causes structural damage, there is a claim, and if there is any dispute about whether the approximate direct cause of the flooding was subsidence, it can go to the courts.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to say a word on this in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am rather doubtful whether the interpretation of this definition of subsidence damage would be sufficient to include damage which is due to flooding. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the phrase "structural damage caused by the withdrawal of support" would probably be narrowly construed by the courts and not be deemed to mean structural damage caused by flooding caused by the withdrawal of support. That is what the right hon. Gentleman says he wishes it to mean.
  May I suggest to him that, in view of what he has said, he should give further consideration to this point with a view if necessary to making an Amendment to embody his undertaking? After all, damage caused by flooding where the flooding is caused by the withdrawal of support, may not be easy to prove. It
  1976
  should be covered by this definition. It would really be much better to insert words to make that clear beyond doubt than to leave it to possible arguments in the courts, going from one court to another, and probably incurring great expense on both sides, including the Coal Board. There is a great deal of other work to be done tonight and perhaps the Minister could save time by saying that he will give further consideration to the point which he has himself raised.
  Mr. Bracken: We really must get a proper definition of this. I listened to what the Minister said. I listened to every word of his rather long sentence—a bit ungrammatical but it is typical of him. Perhaps the Lord Advocate can help us by explaining the meaning of the promise of the Minister, that when subsidence appears owing to a collapse of land or the pillars supporting land, the Coal Board will accept this development as a charge upon the State. That is not a good explanation and if I may for a moment interrupt the Lord Advocate whose contribution to this Debate has only been to explain Gaelic to the House of Commons—or what he this is Gaelic, Scottish Law—I suggest that as we have the Attorney-General here, it might be a good thing for the Minister to hold some confabulations with him. We are grieved, Sir Charles, because as you know every hon. Member of this House costs the country a great deal of money merely to send him here. The next thing is to understand that our legislation is a vast cost on the community and there are rare occasions when one can get a clear interpretation from the senior Law Officers both of England and Scotland.
  9.30 p.m.
  May I suggest that as the Attorney-General is lounging beyond the range of your eye, Sir Charles, he should come forward and provide the explanation which we have tried for hours to get from the Minister? This is no reflection on the Lord Advocate because we both recognise the Attorney-General's pre-eminent abilities I think that on the whole, the Government could invite the Attorney-General here to explain the Minister's prose, which is about as shapeless as a blancmange——
  Mr. Janner rose—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will sit down when I stand up. We have had a lot of discussion and surely we are ready to come to a decision.
  Mr. Janner: I want to say one word. It seems to me that what is taking place is really for the purpose of trying to kill this Bill altogether. There is no doubt at all that the words are perfectly clear and that, instead of assisting with regard to any question of flooding, if any additional words are put in, they would limit the Clause, rather than extend it. I hope the Minister will not agree to amend it in any way.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney BraithwaiteThe hon. Member for Leicester, Northwest (Mr. Janner) is a distinguished member of the legal profession and members of the legal profession somewhat favour obscure language in Bills, for obvious reasons, on which I will not dilate. We are still in some little difficulty. I confess that I only entered the Committee during this discussion, but I was in time to hear the right hon. Gentleman say just now that his speech on the Financial Resolution was crystal clear. He went on to define the clarity and said that those who could not understand him could go to the courts. With all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, the duty of the House of Commons is so to word their legislation that the fewest possible people have to resort to the courts. I think that is the difficulty in which the Committee find themselves now——
  The Deputy-Chairman: On the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" it is impossible to amend the Clause now.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: We always bow to your Ruling, Sir Charles, but you did allow the Minister to say that there could be resort to the courts. All I am saying is that on Report stage there will be an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman so to clarify the wording of this very important Measure that there shall not be litigation in the future. However welcome it might be to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West and his friends, the duty of the House of Commons is to avoid litigation if we can. I hope that in the interval during the Whitsun Recess the right hon. Gentleman can consider this. I see an hon. Member behind the Chair supporting the Attorney
  1978
  General—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—My eyesight is not out of order. It is a very bad state of affairs when an hon. Member's eyesight is out of order.
  Mr. Messer: No, the hon. and gallant Member is out of order two inches higher up.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: You would probably rule me out of order if I dealt with the intolerable levity and astigmatism of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer). All I suggest is that the Minister of Fuel and Power should spend the Whitsun Recess in studying this matter to see if on Report stage he can introduce words which would allow of no ambiguity.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: This is a point which I do not think we can leave so easily. It seems to me to be a matter of considerable importance. You, Sir Charles, in your capacity as Chairman, have already said that the words "directly" or "indirectly" could not be considered on a previous Amendment, and of course they were outside the scope of the Money Resolution. We now have the Minister saying that flooding can be considered as an indirect cause of damage, and it seems to me to be an impossible position that, in one case, it is ruled, and rightly so, that a particular thing is outside the scope of the Money Resolution, and on the other hand the Minister is allowed to take refuge behind exactly the same thing, to defend the particular interpretation which he has put upon it.
  The right hon. Gentleman has said—and I am quoting his words—that if flooding occurs as a result of mine subsidence in one place and damages a house in another place, then the people in the house concerned have a case against the National Coal Board. That is the perfect example of indirect damage due to subsidence, which is the very thing which you, Sir Charles, have ruled out of order as being the subject of a previous Amendment. Of course, Sir Charles, you must be right, which therefore means that the Minister must be wrong, because it must mean that the definition by the Minister is something which no court would uphold.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for that polite compliment. I would remind him, however,

  1979
  of Standing Order 20 under which, if he indulges in irrelevant or tedious repetition, I can ask him to sit down.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: With great respect to you, Sir Charles, I do not think that anybody so far in this Debate has mentioned the particular point which I have just mentioned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I hope you will correct me, Sir Charles, if I am wrong. What I wish to ask you, is this: That you, in your capabilities, have ruled out a certain Amendment and have said that a certain line of argument is out of order on the present Clause, yet the Minister has made this self-same case in his own defence. What I want to ask is that in view of that, the Minister now be asked to produce a reason which was within the terms of the Clause as you yourself have defined it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  New Clause.—(ALTERATION IN USE OF DWELLING-HOUSE.)
  The tenant of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies shall not without the consent in writing of the owner thereof make any change in the use thereof or of part thereof or any structural alteration thereto the effect of which would be that after such change of use or structural alteration such dwelling-house would no longer be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, and every lease or tenancy of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies shall be deemed for all purposes to be subject to a covenant on the part of the tenant not without such consent to make such change of use or structural alteration.—[Mr. Higgs.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This Clause is proposed to the Committee in order that, through unwitting failure on the part of anybody to understand the implications of the Bill, a house may not lose benefits which the Bill seeks to confer upon it. In drafting the Clause we had, of course, some difficulty in that we did not know what would be the state of the Bill by the time we reached the end of the Amendments and the beginning of the new Clauses. It may be that in our anxiety to cover as much as
  1980
  possible we covered rather more than is necessary, having regard to the state of affairs which now obtains.
  We are still faced, however, with a situation in which, by any increase in rateable value, and by many a change of the kind of use to which a house is put, a house which is at present within the benefits of the Bill may be put outside those benefits. Having reached this stage in the passage of the Bill through the Committee, the most serious problem, as I see it, is the case where a house is already let to a tenant. No doubt in future, once the terms of the Bill become generally known, landlords in letting their houses will direct the attention of their tenants to the necessity of keeping within the provisions of the Bill by imposing clauses in their tenancy agreements and printing them on the backs of rent books and so on, which will bring this matter clearly to the notice of tenants and prevent them from transgressing in innocence.
  After all, no tenant is going to seek to take the house outside the Bill any more than is the landlord. Here, at least, we find that the interests of landlord and tenant are identical. Therefore, we have prepared this new Clause, and we hope that the Committee will adopt it, at any rate in regard to those tenancies which are already in existence. It may well be that there are tenancies in existence which place upon the tenant an obligation entered into prior to this Bill being published to do the very things which would take the house outside the Bill. It is by no means unknown for a landlord to let a house to a tenant at a rent which may be so low as to be uneconomic in consideration for the tenant making additions to the house, and improving it in some way or another. Again, it is by no means unknown for a house to be let upon a condition that a certain type of business shall be started in it.
  These obligations, entered into before the Bill was published, will now take the house outside the Bill unless something is done to prevent that. Therefore, we suggest, particularly with regard to those houses which are already let, that this provision should be inserted. It is a matter of comment and no more on this particular Clause that the same consideration will apply—and no doubt provision will be made for it—for houses already under mortgage. We hope that the Minister

  1981
  will see his way to concede us this Clause, at any rate in so far as it relates to houses let on contract before this Bill was first published.
  Mr. Robens: I do not think we could ask the Committee to accept this Clause. In the first place, it refers to dwelling-houses to which the Bill applies, and then lays upon those tenants certain obligations. The Bill applies to dwelling-houses with a rateable value of £32. That would mean that the tenant of every house in this country with a rateable value of £32 would be placed in the position of being prevented from making structural alterations under a Bill never designed for that purpose. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that we could not possibly accept a Clause of this kind to legislate for things for which the Bill was never intended.
  It is also a dangerous Clause because, if accepted, it would mean that there could be widespread evasions. It would then be possible for the owner of a house to let it to a tenant on the understanding that he would build an addition to it, possibly a nice garage, or something of that character. When the owner took back the house from the tenant, he would find himself with a house of a greater rateable value than £32 which was still covered by the provisions of this Bill, and he would have done it legally because of the inclusion of this Clause. Therefore, we could not accept it on those grounds.
  There are other grounds upon which it is not acceptable. For instance, if there is any question of a house being let, the landlord usually draws up an agreement stating that structural additions cannot be undertaken by the tenant unless he has the permission of the landlord. In such cases, it is perfectly clear that the landlord would know the position under this Bill, and if he agreed, whether in writing or not, to a structural addition to the house which brought it over the £32 rateable value, it would be quite wrong to keep that house within the Bill.
  9.45 p.m.
  If this Clause is included that would be the case. On a number of grounds, as I have just stated, it would be wrong to include this Clause. It would enable houses not intended to be brought within the Bill to be brought within its terms.
  1982
  It would not be of real benefit, but it could lead, and would lead, to many evasions. On those grounds, the Clause should be rejected.
  Mr. Bracken: I noticed that the Attorney-General scurried out during the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's most curious explanation of the law. He first told us, without the Lord Advocate batting an eyelid, that this Bill would affect every person in the country whose home has a rateable value of £32. If I may say so with all courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, that is perfect nonsense. This Bill applies only to certain people. It is no good the hon. Gentleman coming along and trying to raise our hair by saying we are legislating for the whole community. We are legislating for a small, but important, part of the community, that is, people affected by subsidence.
  It is wrong, therefore, to reject the new Clause and to say that if we adopt it we are going to present more problems for the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Works. This particular language only fits the cases of a number of people who, for the most part, are people of limited means who have invested their money in houses and really fear damage by subsidence because it is not a marketable thing.
  The Parliamentary Secretary may not know it, and the right hon. Croesus, the Minister, of course, does not know it, but the poor find it very hard, strange as it may seem to the Minister, to get rid of a so-called asset that has been damaged by subsidence. It is hard for me to get hon. Gentlemen opposite to see this, point; but it is not easy, even for the best Socialist salesman, to get somebody to buy a house damaged by subsidence. That is why I am surprised that we do not get more support from hon. Members behind the Front Bench opposite, because they can speak with greater knowledge than I can.
  This really is a point of major importance. I agree that it only affects a limited section of the community, that is, people who saved up to buy their houses in the mining areas. They have not speculated or gone to dog racing meetings. They have put their humble savings in their homes. Surely they should be protected. The Home Secretary is interrupting as usual but he, as always, has the grace to do it sitting down. It is a

  1983
  pity, in a way, that the right hon. Gentle-roan does not get up and give the House the benefit of his comments or mutterings. But perhaps he feels it is impossible for us to know what exactly he is saying about this Bill.
  I appeal to people like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) to realise that these are matters of high consequence to the mining world. I hope—and I do not want to bring controversial language in here—that the Minister will have another look at this Clause. It could be redrafted in such a way that most of my hon. Friends probably could support it. Can I leave it like that? Will the Minister tell us that he will give this matter reconsideration? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I was asking the question of the Minister who, although he is reduced in Cabinet status can answer for himself without the aid of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner). I asked him if he can give that assurance, and then we can pass to the rest of our task on this Bill.
  Mr. Higgs: I am rather surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary has completely misunderstood the meaning of the words in this Clause. The purpose of this Clause is to say to the tenant, "You must not so change the building itself or the use of it that you will take it out of this Measure." The Parliamentary Secretary, from what he said, clearly understood it to mean that if the tenant inadvertently takes a house out of the Bill, this Clause will bring it back in. That is not the intention of the Clause at all. I hope the hon. Gentleman will think about it again, perhaps in the cold light of dawn tomorrow, when he is able to read it once more.
  All we are seeking to do is to say to tenants, "You must speak to your landlord and talk it over with him before you do anything which will take your house out of the benefits of this Measure." We do not seek to make the National Coal Board or the public purse poorer by one halfpenny by the inclusion of this Clause. It seems to us that the Clause will serve a very useful purpose by causing tenants to think of these matters before they take any step which, in the end, will perhaps rob them of their homes.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: There has been a genuine misunderstanding. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) has just said puts rather a different complexion upon the Clause from that which he had in mind when he made his speech. I do not think we are asking for very much in requesting reconsideration, and I ask the Minister to say whether he will reconsider the Clause in the light of the misunderstanding.
  Mr. Robens: I am afraid we cannot give the Clause reconsideration, and there is no misunderstanding about it. It is not the purpose of this Bill to interfere with the normal obligations as between tenant and landlord. It seems to me that landlords look after themselves very well.
  Mr. Higgs: That is just what it does do, in respect of those landlords whose houses are already let on contracts which were made before they had knowledge of this Bill. I particularly ask the Minister to consider it again in respect of those tenancies which were made before this Bill was framed. In the ordinary way the landlord would give notice to terminate the tenancy and grant a new one with a clause to cover this point, but owing to the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts they cannot do so. I predict that every mortgage in the country which relates to a house which might be within the ambit of the Bill will be called in. Borrowers will be put to the expense of a new mortgage deed to cover themselves, but landlords cannot do that with their tenants because of the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts. That is why I moved this Clause with respect to those houses already let.
  Mr. Bracken: We want to get on. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may not know it, but the Whips do. I suggest that the Minister should give this a little more consideration. What the Parliamentary Secretary does not understand is that the landlord in this case may often be the Coal Board itself, and may be the Coal Board on a very big scale, because the Coal Board are the largest landlords in Britain. When the Parliamentary Secretary says that the landlord can look after himself, hon. Members do not realise that the landlord is the Socialist Coal Board, and that landlord has not shown much sign of mercy so far.

  1985
  A remark was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgiove (Mr. Higgs) which ought really to warn us, irrespective of party, of the dangers of this type of legislation. People nowadays have to mortgage their houses and they are up against many difficult circumstances, more particularly if they have got children to educate. The owning of house property, despite what some hon. Members opposite may say, is on the whole a good thing. As my hon. Friend rightly said, if we pass this Bill in its present form almost every mortgage will be called in by cautious solicitors and their clients. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Leicester, North West (Mr. Janner) wish to say anything? I was referring to cautious solicitors.
  I beg the House to consider this matter. If we are not careful we shall expose people who do not deserve this sort of treatment to a sudden demand for capital which they have not got, because they have mortgaged their houses in many cases to help their children get a start in life.
  Mr. Robens: They might transfer them to the Co-operative Permanent Building Society and then they would be all right.
  Mr. Bracken: In better times it used to be said that hon. Members in this House should not advertise their own squalid commercial concerns, but here we have a former employee and a hopeful employee in the future—and I hope it will not be too long delayed—boasting of the virtues of the Co-operative Society, interrupting me when I was making a point which I thought appealed to hon. Members opposite.
  All I have asked the Minister is, would he mind considering the implications of the warning given by my hon. Friend that this Bill strikes at a section of the community which depends upon small savings? I think it is quite a fair point. Would the Minister reconsider this? There are various other things we have to do tonight. In many cases the Bill affects people who have placed their small savings in houses and have borrowed on the security. These are among the best people in the community. Do not let us heedlessly penalise them.
  Question put, and negatived.

  New Clause. —(ONUS OF PROOF AS TO CAUSE OF DAMAGE.)
  Where any structural damage occurs to a dwelling-house to which this Act applies and it is shown that coal is being worked or gotten or has. within the period of ten years preceding the occurrence of damage, being worked or gotten under such dwelling-house the onus of proof that such structural damage is not subsidence damage shall rest upon the National Coal Board.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  It is difficult to deal with this by no means unimportant new Clause. The purpose of it is to make quite certain where the onus of proof lies in the event of a disputed claim for compensation. I think it goes to the root of the practical working of the Bill. Suppose that damage has occurred to a house in a mining area, for example, that its roof has fallen in, that a crack has appeared in one of the walls, or that the ceiling has fallen down. That is the kind of thing which is by no means limited to mining areas. It is the sort of thing which might happen to any house in any part of the country.
  What is quite certain is that, as soon as this Bill becomes an Act, those who reside in mining areas will, when something of that sort occurs, immediately put in a claim to the National Coal Board—and quite rightly. I do not blame them; I do not think anyone in any part of the House would blame them. They will say, "They are working coal mines around here and there is damage to my house, so I will put in a claim." The owner will put in the claim and will, of course, have his house inspected by someone from the Coal Board.
  I think that in a substantial proportion of cases the National Coal Board will dispute the claim. The case will then have to go to the county court, unless of course the owner of the house submits and withdraws his claim for compensation. The position in the county court will be that we have humble John Smith, probably a miner with no great resources, versus the National Coal Board, one of the largest and wealthiest undertakings in the world. The claim will be for no very considerable sum to the National Coal Board but for what may be a very considerable sum to the individual.
  Mr. Bracken: And the Coal Board will have the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate to speak for them.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: John Smith will have no information whatever, except the general information available to those who live in the district, about what the Coal Board are doing. He will know of course, that coal is being worked in the neighbourhood, but he will have no precise knowledge of where it is being worked, and he may have some difficulty in obtaining the information. The Coal Board, on the other hand, will have all the information available, besides its vast financial resources.
  In those circumstances we must load the balance properly. We must see that the organisation which has all the money and all the knowledge cannot just sit tight and say to John Smith, "You make out your case"; because the position under the Bill as it is drafted is that John Smith will be the plaintiff——
  It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Barnoldswick, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved."
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Lees, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved."
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Bagshot, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved."
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of the Isle of Wight, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th May. be approved."—[Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas.]

  DOMESTIC COAL ALLOCATIONS
  10.2 p.m.
  Mr. Raikes: I beg to move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Direction, dated 20th April, 1950, entitled the Coal Distribution (Restriction) Direction, 1950 (S. I., 1950, No. 644), a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be annulled."
  The object of this Prayer is to call attention to the unhappy lot of the domestic consumer of coal at the present time. It looks to me as if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power is going to reply to the Prayer, and for that, I confess, I am a little sorry, although not out of any discourtesy to him; but the Parliamentary Secretary has of late taken to the unfortunate habit of always saying "No" to any proposal that is made from this side of the House. It has just flashed across my mind how lucky it is that the Parliamentary Secretary is not a girl. If he were he would lead a miserable wallflower existence, because nobody would ever invite him out if he knew that his proposals would be refused whatever they might be. I hope tonight, however, that we may get a little more favour than we have been accustomed to getting from him of late.
  This direction is under the Coal Distribution Order, 1943. In 1943 the Coal Distribution Order was put into operation to put a ceiling upon the amount of coal which domestic consumers might receive, so that stocks of coal could be prepared in connection with the war in Europe. That was the reason for it. Since 1943, every year we have had a direction continuing to place a ceiling upon what the domestic consumer is permitted to receive. It is quite true that until this year this direction has always passed without being prayed against by my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, and the reason for that is quite a simple one.
  At the end of the war there was still a shortage of coal; we were anxious that the National Coal Board should have every possible opportunity after nationalisation to get into its stride, and therefore until now the direction has been unchallenged. But we are now reaching rather a farcical state of affairs. The maximum amount of coal permitted to

  1989
  the domestic consumer today under this direction is no more than it was at the end of the war, in spite of all the wonderful new schemes and all the advantages, or so-called advantages, of nationalisation. The domestic consumer is still held down to the war position for quantity; and, as I shall show in a moment or two, he has also suffered gravely in regard to the quality of the coal he receives as compared with only a few years ago.
  First, I want to say a word or two about quantity. A number of my hon. Friends who will speak in this important Debate—and we are indeed lucky that the hour is still comparatively early, so that we shall have every opportunity to discuss a matter which is of great importance to the ordinary consumer of coal—will be able to point out how, not only is the "ceiling" for what a domestic consumer may receive the same as it was at the end of the war, but in many areas the consumer fails to get the maximum allocation permitted even under this general direction.
  It is bad enough to have a ceiling—and a low ceiling—and it is bad enough to have a deteriorating quality, but it is still worse if even what can be allocated under the general direction is not always allocated to anything like that figure. That is borne out by the general consumption figures for domestic coal in the course of the past few years. For 1949, we have the lowest consumption of coal for domestic purposes ever known in modern history; it was only 30.8 million tons—the lowest on record; nearly eight million tons less than domestic consumers received in 1943, the first year of the Order, when we were building up stocks for the invasion of Europe, and about 14 million tons less than the domestic consumers consumed just prior to the outbreak of war.
  It may be suggested—I do not know; I never know what the Parliamentary Secretary will say—that the domestic consumer does not now need the coal that he needed in the past because of the increase in the consumption of gas and electricity. If that view is to be put forward, I would remind the House of the report issued in June last year by the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, who made two points. They said, first:
  1990
  "The coal fire is still preferred by the majority of householders for heating the main living room"—
  and do not we know it? Secondly they said that
  "The principal limit of domestic consumption is the statutory restriction."
  If that is so—and presumably that Council, which was, after all, set up by the Government under the nationalisation Act, knew their own job—it stands to reason that domestic consumers would be consuming more if they had the opportunity to do so, and consumption has not merely fallen because they have been driven, in many cases, to electricity and gas—incidentally at ever-rising prices since those two industries have been nationalised.
  I want now to say a little about quality. The deterioration in the quality of coal in recent years——
  Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order, Sir Charles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Mr. Deputy-Speaker."] Is there any question about the quality of coal in this Order?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): No, I think it is mostly quantity.
  Mr. Mitchison: I apologise for inadvertently referring to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as the Chairman.
  Mr. Brendan Bracken: On that point of order, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will treat the Chair with proper respect. It is quite impossible to separate quantity from quality in coal today. The Government's excuse is always, "We have to reduce in quantity and what you get by way of slates, etc., you must put up with because later on we are turning to quality." I hold that quantity and quality at present are inseparable. I am no mining engineer, but I think that my hon. Friend is entitled to plead for quantity and quality because they are inseparable.
  Mr. Raikes: I should like to make it quite plain that when I am referring to quality, I am only doing so in order to point out that if we have worse quality we need greater quantity. That is where the two are married. If I may, I will give one example to bear out this particular point. So far as industrial coal is

  1991
  concerned, it is generally admitted that whatever the deterioration in quantity may be, the industrial consumer gets better coal than the domestic consumer. That is the Government's policy.
  I ventured in an earlier Debate dealing with coal to quote the position of the baths department of the Liverpool Corporation, and I said that whereas before the war 162 tons of coal a week was sufficient for the heating of the baths, as a result of the inferior quality of coal since the war they now need 212 tons to give the same degree of heat to the baths in which the public wash themselves. If that is so, and if it means in fact that 25 per cent. more coal is needed by an industrial concern now for an industrial purpose, surely I am entitled to point out that if the domestic consumer is getting coal of an even worse quality than the industrial consumer, the figures of quantity as compared with pre-war mean absolutely nothing, unless we bear in mind the difference in quality, which means that a greater amount is needed to give the heat that is required.
  I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman who raised that point of order, and who, I know, has considerable knowledge of these matters, would fully appreciate that in bringing in quality I am merely trying to argue about the position of the domestic consumer today with worse coal and the same ceiling in regard to supplies as he had as far back as 1943. I do not propose to go in for a lot of quotations, but I want to give one—and I am quoting the National Coal Board because it is always nice to be able to quote the National Coal Board. Mr. Thomas, who is a deputy director of the commercial marketing side of the National Coal Board, when speaking of the domestic consumer in June of last year, said:
  "We are driven to send to the domestic consumer qualities we should never dream of sending and indeed would never get accepted in normal times."
  I am sure that the Minister would not query anything that was said by the National Coal Board, and by a leading member of it. Therefore, here is our domestic consumer getting only 67 per cent. of the amount of coal which he consumed in 1938 and the combustible quality of which—I am being very conservative
  1992
  —is 30 per cent. below pre-war. I am being very moderate in suggesting that the figure is only 30 per cent. below pre-war. I always like to understate my case, unlike the Minister of Health. I am always very charming to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is only his negative qualities which sometimes rather depress me. But joking apart, it is a grave indictment both of the Government and of the National Coal Board that the consumer should be in this position.
  Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to remind him that pre-nationalisation coal was described by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) as only fit to make crazy paving in the garden. When the hon. Member makes comparisons, perhaps he will let us have comparisons a little more recently.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Order does not refer to the quality of coal but to quantity.
  Mr. Mitchison: With respect, I entirely accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and trust it will also be conveyed to the hon. Member opposite, who has been talking about quality for the last 10 minutes.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As I understand it, we are talking about the quantity of coal allowed to consumers. If we are not allowed to talk about quality, how can we say whether the quantity is satisfactory or not?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know how the hon. Member can say it, but he can only talk about what is in the Order.
  Mr. Raikes: I fully appreciate that it is always difficult to work in questions of quality and quantity when quantity is so much affected by the deterioration of quality. You have permitted me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with your usual fairness, to deal with quality only to the extent that I desired to deal with it fairly to show that deterioration in quality means that the domestic consumer requires a greater quantity than he would require if the quality had not deteriorated. Having made that point, I will pass on to one or two other observations.
  I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not ride off the criticism of the lack

  1993
  of domestic coal, whether in quantity or quality, with the old song of the wickedness of the coal owners during the war years. There is one thing that is certain, and that is that the coal industry has never been under closer scrutiny by the Government than it was between 1939 and 1945. We had then, for the first time in our history, an ex-miner as Secretary for Mines, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in 1940—the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). During his period of office, the control of the coal mines came into operation, and when he departed in June, 1941, and Major Lloyd George was made Minister of Fuel and Power——
  Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. Member like me to correct his history?
  Mr. Raikes: The hon. and learned Member might at least let me finish my sentence. I was going to add that when Major Lloyd George became Minister of Fuel and Power, he had as his Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Tom Smith, another miner. Thus, during the war period the coal industry was watched by those who had a very close interest indeed in it. It is a remarkable thing that the only time of which I know when ex-miners were associated with the Ministry of Fuel and Power was when my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was Prime Minister. We came to the end of the war, and the Government never suggested, when nationalisation was being advocated, that there was any serious danger that the supply of coal for the domestic consumer would be lacking either in quantity or in quality.
  I want to make only two points, and they are points which are worth making, because they explode the sort of policy which is so often produced in bursts of oratory from the benches opposite. When nationalisation took place, the Government believed, with the whole knowledge of the coal industry before them—if they had not got it before them in 1946 they must have been blind—that they could produce by 1950 no less than 220 million tons of coal under the Marshall Aid allocation. If they were producing 220 million tons of deep-mined coal today, there would be no question of this Order restricting domestic consumers. Instead
  1994
  of 220 million tons for 1950, however, on present figures we shall be lucky if we reach 205 million tons. The fact remains that if the Government were right in their Marshall Aid allocation and in their knowledge of the coal industry, there would have been no need for this direction.
  Mr. Fernyhough: That figure includes opencast coal.
  Mr. Raikes: The figure I have given does not include opencast coal. That was raised earlier and I had the opportunity of putting the Minister himself right. As I said at the time, he was new to the job and must have been given the wrong figures by his Parliamentary Secretary. Those figures are deep-mined coal figures and are apart from opencast coal. If I do know one thing, I know figures when I quote them.
  We were also told at the time when the coal industry was nationalised in 1945 than in another 12 to 18 months the cleaning plants, screening and so forth would be all right. That was what the Minister said when producing his Bill in 1946. In spite of all this, we still see that the amount of coal which the unfortunate domestic consumer receives is not good in any shape or form. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us one or two assurances—either that he can agree to the withdrawal of this direction now and replace it with a higher maximum amount, or, if he cannot do that, that he will be able to tell us that, with the drive and vigour which we were told we were going to see from the Minister himself, within a short time we shall see this direction withdrawn altogether.
  If we cannot have that assurance, it is a terrible condemnation not only of the Coal Board, but of the Ministry itself. It would bear out that heartrending cry of Lord Hindley himself in the "News of the World" only a short time ago, when he said:
  "Either we get more coal or the whole basis of British life may be threatened. Things cannot go on like this. I doubt if the country realises the gravity of the position."
  If that is so, it does not mean that nationalisation cannot work; it means that the present method of running nationalisation is faulty and that the

  1995
  whole system needs a drastic overhaul. It is on those grounds, not only in the interests of the domestic consumer but in order to call attention to the grave errors which have led to the present plight, that I move this Prayer.
  10.25 p.m.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to second the Motion.
  I am disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to be here himself. This is a matter in which many people are interested, and we should have been grateful if the Minister could have attended. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question about the Explanatory Note. Paragraph 2 says:
  "The maximum quantities remain the same as for the preceding 12 months; but, in the southern regions, 24 cwt. of house coal (including coalite) may now be furnished or acquired during the summer period instead of 20 cwt. as previously."
  It is clear from the Order that all this means is that people in the southern region may have 4 cwt. more in the summer and 4 cwt. less in the winter. I do not think it is at all clear from the wording, and if it is possible to alter it I hope something will be put there which will save hon. Members on all sides of the House a great deal of unnecessary correspondence.
  My hon. Friend talked about quantity and quality, and made the point that the amount of coal allowed under this Order has to be viewed in regard to its efficiency and whether it meets the needs of the people. It is not only a question of weight but what happens to the coal when we put it into a fireplace. If it does not burn, we could give people 5 cwt. a month and it would not meet their needs. The British thermal units in the coal supplied have fallen very much. My hon. Friend says that this is known in industry, but it is equally well known to private consumers. In the time that the Minister has been at the Ministry, I have no doubt he has become accustomed to receiving ill-done-up packages containing pieces of slate sent to him for inspection, together with comments upon what the National Coal Board have delivered. The president of the Coal Merchants' Federation said earlier this year:
  "There are too many consumers in the country who are fed up with coal and who
  1996
  are sick of being down-graded from what they ought to have to the very worst that has been foisted upon them."
  Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, when he makes an allocation of coal to the domestic consumer, how much of it is deep-mined and how much is opencast? That matter has a considerable bearing on the problem. It is known that opencast mining, whatever its eventual cost, produces more bad-quality coal than deep-mining. Therefore, if opencast coal for the most part is allocated to meet the ration, it follows that the quantity of the coal available under the Order will be insufficient to meet the needs of the average domestic consumer. From reading the statements of Sir John Charrington and others I shall have to mention later, one can only feel that there is evidence to show that the coal which is sent to meet the requirements under the Order is of the lowest possible class.
  I quarrel with my hon. Friend when he quotes figures of the percentage of consumption; I do not think they tell the true story. In order to make a true comparison between what the Government are doing now and what was done before the war, figures must be based on British thermal units. Unless they are based on something like that, it is impossible for the House to judge the value of the concessions made to domestic consumers by the Government under this Order.
  We have been told on so many occasions that the nationalisation of coal benefits all sections of the community—not only the miners, but the domestic consumers—that perhaps I might remind the House of what is said in Section 1 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. It lays down that one of the duties of the National Coal Board is
  "making supplies of coal available, of such qualities and sizes, in such quantities and at such prices, as may seem to them best calculated to further the public interest in all respects."
  When the Government produce an Order of this nature, I think they have to justify it by these tests. From what my hon. Friend has said in moving this Prayer, it is clear there are no grounds for believing they have met any of these tests. There is certainly not more coal than was provided before; there is certainly

  1997
  not better coal, and certainly not cheaper coal. In the last week in my own division, the price of the delivery of coal has gone up by 5s. a ton. One cannot say that under any of the main headings which should govern the methods of the Minister in applying the Act, he has succeeded.
  What is even more important is what members of the Coal Board themselves have to say on this problem. I find in them an arrogance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly, when I have made the quotations, I hope hon. Members opposite will agree. This is what is said by the Chairman of the Scottish Division:
  "What are their rights? What do they hope for? What do they expect from the Board in the years lying ahead?"
  I dare say that if any chairman of a private company dared so to heckle his shareholders, he would be in for trouble. When we have Section 1 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act setting out clearly what they have to produce and then get this sort of statement, it shows a wide difference. Again referring to my hon. Friend's remarks, I think that all classes of consumer have the right to expect, indeed, the right to demand, that the standard of coal delivered to them shall be at least as good as before the war.
  Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was rebuked by your predecessor in the Chair a few minutes ago for pointing out that the quality of coal before nationalisation had been described by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) as fit only for crazy paving in the garden. If I was rebuked for that, how can these two speeches be in order? They are about the quality of coal, and the duties of the National Coal Board as defined by Section 1 of the Act, which matters are not mentioned in the Order, and do not, in my respectful submission, arise out of it.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The question is certainly one of quantity and not quality.
  Mr. Bracken: Further to that point of order. We have twice had to listen to the ravings of the hon. and learned Gentleman——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is too strong an expression about another hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman must withdraw it.
  Mr. Bracken: Of course. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do you withdraw?"] Most willingly; but it is the second time we have heard the hon. Gentleman speaking, and your predecessor ruled he was out of order in quoting from some speech made by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan). Whether it was accurate or not we do not know, but it is disturbing for the hon. and learned Member to go on repeating these things. Surely it is better for my hon. Friend to be allowed to go on with his quotations.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The matter is really perfectly clear. The Order refers to the maximum aggregate quantities, not to quality.
  Miss Jennie Lee: Further to the point of order. We have now listened to two speeches from the opposite benches which have dealt with quality and not quantities. I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether any of us on this side who may be successful enough to catch your eye will be able to reply to the points already made by hon. Members opposite?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We must wait and see. In my view, any discussion on the Order must restrict itself to quantities and not to quality, and I hope the hon. acid gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) will observe that Ruling.
  Mr. Butcher: Surely we are entitled, in bringing to the attention of the House and the Minister the quantities of coal allocated to our constituents and discussing whether they are sufficient, to bring to mind the quality of such coal as is allocated. The adequacy of the coal so allocated must depend on quality as well as quantity.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry I cannot accept that argument.
  Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman accused me of what he described as ravings. While I am not prepared to accept his judgment on the question of sanity, I understood you to

  1999
  rule that that phrase was out of order, and I am still waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw, as it is only decent that he should do so.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn, though not very graciously.
  Mr. Bracken: I would never like it to be said that under guidance of the Chair, I was not gracious. I do not think the words, as I interpret them, are insulting, but in deference to your judgment, Sir, I most certainly withdraw them. I would, however, ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the Oxford Dictionary tomorrow, and it will please him to find that there is a less offensive definition of ravings than so far his readings have allowed.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I go on to quote further from the speech of the Chairman of the Scottish Division of the National Coal Board? As my hon. Friend has said, and I support him, this is probably coming chiefly from opencast mining and will be of the worst possible quality.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is now disregarding my Ruling. He must not do so.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I understood—and if I am wrong I hope I may be forgiven—that it was in order to point out that the quantities, because of the quality of the coal, may not be sufficient. If that is out of order, I accept your Ruling, if that is your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is my Ruling. This is a reference to the quality of a particular class of coal which does not appear to have any relevance to the Order. I hope the House will permit the hon. Member to continue, and will not continually raise points of order. The matter is perfectly clear and quite simple.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: Further to the point of order. On the question of quantity there is difficulty. There are some places in the country where the quantity is not supplied because the quality of the coal is too low. Thus the quantity of the ration cannot be supplied. Therefore, I submit that quality is relevant to the determination of the quantity.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Earlier today your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, while ruling as you have done, that the question of quality itself was out of order, nevertheless permitted the discussion of quality in so far as it had a very direct bearing on quantity. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not."] I am within the recollection of the House. I should like to put the point that quality might be considered by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as relevant strictly in relation to its bearing on the quality of the different types of coal.
  Mr. John Hynd: Hon. Members on this side of the House are concerned about how wide the Debate is going. If it is the case that quality can be discussed in relation to usefulness, I submit that the conditions of the miners are the direct cause of the amount of coal which can be put up in centres.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point is really a narrow one. Passing reference to quality as it affects quantity may be in order, but it is not in order to go into the detail upon which I suspected that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was about to enter.
  Mr. G. B. Craddock: May I give an illustration? Supposing 100 pounds of coal were delivered, and that coal only had a British thermal unit value of 8,000 calories. Is that not much worse, even from the point of view of quantity, than if the coal had 12,000 British thermal units value, which would be much better?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a hypothetical and technical question with which I cannot be expected to deal. Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If, before going on, I may just finish that passage, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will give us the figures of the amount of opencast coal which is included in the domestic ration.
  I will now go on to something to which I do not think any hon. Member will object, that is, a reference by the Chairman of the Scottish Division of the National Coal Board in which he says, talking about consumers, that they should have the right to purchase as much coal

  2001
  as they need, and especially that there should no longer be a limit to the quantity supplied to domestic consumers. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether that represents the views of the Ministry and, if it does, why has the Ministry not acted upon it? Here is the chairman of one of the Divisions of the Board suggesting something which we on this side support, but which has not been accepted by the Minister himself. What, I would ask, is the factor which has made him unable to accede to this statement of one of his own senior officials?
  Another question which I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is this. Under this Order, although the total quantity of coal which any domestic consumer may have is not increased, that consumer may buy 4 cwt. more in the summer if he forgoes 4 cwt. in the winter. The Order stipulates that, whether he takes the coal in the summer or the winter, he pays the same price. Hon. Members will remember that before the industry was nationalised, one of the chief objects of the coal merchants calling on domestic consumers was to try to get them to take more coal in the summer months so as to encourage smooth distribution throughout the year. With stocks being accumulated in domestic cellars in the summer, there were not abnormal calls on the distributive trade in the winter when, over the majority of the country, distribution of coal might be more difficult.
  Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why this arrangement is not incorporated in this Order? Why is it not possible for this extra coal to be taken in the summer months, and so reduce the calls which are made on the trade in the winter? I am told that the Minister may, of course, say that if people have an extra allowance in the summer months at a cheaper rate, they will burn this coal and not have it in the winter. That, surely, is a most illogical argument which no hon. Member will support.
  In conclusion, I would say that here we have an Order which depends for its validity upon the fact that the quantity set out is sufficient to meet the domestic consumer's needs. When the Parliamentary Secretary comes to confirm that this quantity is sufficient, can we also be assured that taking all these questions of
  2002
  opencast coal, and so on, into account, the quality is also sufficient to meet the domestic needs; and, what is perhaps most important of all, can we be told why it is not possible to revert to the position which obtained before the industry was nationalised when coal was sold more cheaply during the summer months, so that we evened out the flow for the trade? There is another point in this connection. This arrangement would avoid the sort of sudden crisis which, alas, we have known in the not-distant past, when coal could not be distributed during the bitter months of winter when supplies were most urgently needed. We all recall what happened a few winters ago. For all these reasons, I hope that the Minister will withdraw the General Direction—that is all he can do—and provide something which is more in keeping with that to which the National Coal Board is pledged, and for which the consumer asks.
  10.49 p.m.
  Miss Jennie Lee: We have heard from right hon. and hon. Members opposite a nostalgic cri de coeur for the wonderful days before the war when the production of coal was in the hands of the private owners and when the domestic consumers could have their needs met in a way which is impossible today. That. I think, is a fair enough summary. Are hon. Members opposite unaware of some of the factors in this situation? I believe that they are, or that they are failing, deliberately, to disclose their knowledge. There are many thousands of domestic consumers in Great Britain today who are better pleased with the quality, as well as the quantity, of the coal—[Interruption]. The reaction of hon. Members opposite is the complete give-away. Earlier today, they have been talking as the defenders of the miners and as being concerned about the interests of the ordinary consumers. By their reaction now, they have obviously disclosed that they do not know what I am now going to tell them.
  There are thousands of domestic coal consumers in Great Britain today who are better satisfied with both the quality and the quantity of the coal they have been getting than ever before in their lives, and it would have done some hon. Members opposite good if they had been at an open conference in the heart of the Chase coalfields the other week when on the

  2003
  platform there were a representative mine manager, a working miner, a representative of a consultative committee, and the production departments were represented. In other words, there was a highly-skilled and knowledgeable platform.
  The audience could ask any questions they chose, but they had to ask them in the presence of members of the community who really knew what they were talking about both from the coal-getting side and the coal-consuming side. I found that in that audience there was unanimous agreement that the householders were getting better coal today than they were getting in the old days. [Interruption.] The Chase is a very good place to begin. I am making my first point, that in my own constituency my constituents have got up—and not all them men of the pits—and said that they are getting better coal today than they got before. That is in the Chase.
  I remember the Fife coalfields, and I can remember when my father was entitled, not to free coal—that was not the practice in the Fife coalfields—but to a 16 cwt. load at a reduced price. In those days that coal was so bad that my mother chose to pay top price for bag coal because she wanted what every housewife wanted then and now. She did not want to have to carry dirt into the house and out again, and therefore found it paid her to buy this top-quality coal. Let me say that in Fife in those old days there were thousands and thousands of families who could not buy even modest supplies of that top-quality coal. They had to carry the dirt in and out of the house. They are far better supplied today.
  There are hon. Friends sitting beside me who know better about conditions in those old days. I have hon. Friends representing Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, and Yorkshire sitting beside me, and if one asks people who are not pretending that they are talking for every consumer in this country but who are talking for many thousands of consumers—and not only for the homes of the men who work underground—one finds today that there are many families getting better coal than before. I have a suggestion to make about how we might ease this situation.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: On a point of order. I have been ruled out of order twice by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for talking about quality. The hon. Member has now been talking for five minutes about quality. May I ask for your guidance and whether the situation has changed?.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to leave the matter to me.
  Miss Lee: I was just going to make a suggestion which would increase the quantity of coal that would be available to consumers. I was going to suggest that if the men who bring coal to the surface could be given the dirt to burn at home and we got back to the good old days when some families were rationed by poverty to such an extent that they could buy less coal than even the present ration, maybe that would please hon. Members opposite. If we could get back to the conditions when not only poor people but colliers were getting dirt to burn, there would be more for other people.
  The serious point I am trying to make is that it is rather hard for some of us to bear it when hon. Members opposite masquerade as friends of the housewife and the collier. When we turn back the records of the House of Commons and go back decade after decade, I challenge hon. Members opposite to point to a single Question, far less a single speech, from their benches in which there was even a word of protest when colliers' wives were getting dirty coal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Quantity."]—I am talking of quantity—or of protest that poor folk were not getting enough. There is common agreement on both sides of the House that we want both in industry——
  Mr. Bracken rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No question of order arises.
  Miss Lee: I was saying there was common agreement on all sides of the House that we want for industry, for export, and for domestic consumers the best possible grading of coal. No one in his senses will encourage practices whereby a single bit of unnecessary stone or unnecessary dirt is contained in the coal, and, therefore, so far as hon. Members

  2005
  opposite address themselves seriously to the technical problems of cleaning coal——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have indicated quite clearly that in my view the question here is one of quantity. The matter of quality may perhaps be mentioned in passing, but the hon. Lady is now dealing almost solely with quality, which is out of order.
  Miss Lee: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will conclude by saying that if hon. Members opposite, when arguing for an increase in allocations for the housewife and when they want higher quantities of coal, address themselves seriously to the technical problems involved and the technical difficulties already overcome by the Coal Board and the human problems which are also involved, they will have a more patient hearing from this side of the House. Above all, let them be a little humble in some of the things they say, when they must know in their heart of hearts that they never talked as they do now when it was merely poor folks' coal which was at issue.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish to support the Motion on grounds which, although they do not conflict with the grounds which have been urged by my hon. Friends, are different from them. My main objection to this General Direction is that in reality it is a mystification and a farce. It lays down maximum permitted quantities; but the public inevitably regard those maximum permitted quantities laid down in this General Direction and in its predecessors as a ration.
  How natural it is that the public should so regard them has been illustrated by this Debate already. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) referred to the difficulty of "meeting the ration" when speaking loosely and offhand about this General Direction. My good neighbour the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) also referred to the maximum permitted quantity as a "ration." I mention this because the fact that two hon. Members so well acquainted with the facts of the situation should instinctively refer to this quantity as a "ration" illustrates how
  2006
  natural and indeed inevitable that conception is to the general public.
  The consequences of a General Direction which lays down what the public regards as a ration are very serious. As I shall show in a moment, the maximum quantity has not within living memory been reached or anywhere near reached. Now, to the public at large a ration is not only the maximum quantity they are allowed to buy, but also the quantity which they are able to buy. Therefore, when they find that they cannot be supplied with the quantities laid down in this General Direction, there is a great deal of bitterness and misunderstanding, and that bitterness and misunderstanding is directed to the wrong quarters.
  These General Directions are in fact a device whereby the Government and the National Coal Board shuffle off from their shoulders on to the innocent shoulders of the coal merchants the natural indignation of the public on discovering that they are not able to receive even those amounts which my hon. Friends have shown to be in themselves deficient. These General Directions are, I repeat, a mystification whereby the Government and the National Coal Board are using the coal trade as a lightning conductor.
  On 3rd April the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power was good enough to provide me, in a written answer, with some facts about the amount of coal which has actually been made available in contrast to the maximum permitted quantity. During the last two or three years, in the Midland Region, where the constituencies which I and the hon. Member for Cannock represent are situated, we find that in the year 1948–49 the actual quantity made available was not 50 cwt. but 46.1 cwt. In the following 12 months that amount declined to 44.9 cwt. This deficiency below the maximum permitted quantity of 10.2 per cent. is something very perceptible, when one realises that the deficiency or short-fall is not spread equably over the whole 12-month or six-month period, but occurs in concentrated periods of recurrent shortage.
  We say, therefore, that not only has this maximum permitted quantity not been reached in the past, but also that the gap between what is supplied to the public and the maximum permitted

  2007
  quantity is in fact widening. When we take further into account the fact that, as the Minister himself said on 20th March, in order to reach these amounts there were included in the allocations types of coal which are not really domestic, we realise that the position is actually deteriorating.
  I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies to tell the House whether he has the slightest expectation that in the year 1950–51 he will get anywhere near these maximum permitted quantities which the public are encouraged to regard as their ration, their right and their entitlement, because unless there is some very radical change and some alteration of the trend we have seen in the preceding months he is not going to get within 5 or 10 cwt. of these maximum permitted quantities. Therefore, I support the Motion of my hon. Friends. These maximum permitted quantities are a swindle and a cheat. The Government ought to go before the country and tell the people honestly how much coal they may reasonably expect, instead of deceiving them.
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. Profumo: I want to speak on this Prayer tonight for two reasons. First, I think this General Direction is too restrictive, and secondly, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), I think it is most misleading. Had I made a plea for lessening restrictions in the last Parliament, I would not have expected to get much support from hon. Members opposite, but in view of the new spring fashion in Socialism where restrictions are coming off like old buttons, perhaps the whole House will now agree that restrictions, where they are not really necessary, should be dropped.
  I believe it is high time that the restriction in this Order which limits the amount of coal for domestic use can be delivered during the summer months should cease. The principle in this matter should surely be one of telling the public the true facts and of trusting the local officials on the spot. We are constantly urging the Government on this principle. I am in no way attacking the local officials. The local fuel overseers and the house coal
  2008
  officers are doing a very good job in extremely difficult circumstances, but I think that the Minister is not giving them the scope or the latitude they deserve.
  We are told that the reason they are allowed to have more coal during the summer months in the Southern Region as compared with the Midlands and Northern Regions is because it is hotter in the southern areas, and that there is therefore not the same danger that the domestic coal user will burn his whole ration during the summer months. That is splitting hairs and is a farcical argument. Why should it be hotter in Pinner than in Stratford-on-Avon during the summer? I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is smiling, but it is only a notional barrier—purely an arbitrary decision which permits the consumer to take 24 cwt. during the summer months in the South, and only 20 cwt. in the Midlands or the North. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister that, if they like to come to Warwickshire during the summer, they will be assured of a hot reception.
  There is a very good argument indeed for domestic consumers being allowed to take the whole of their ration during the summer if they want to do so. I believe that the Minister himself would like to make that concession. The arguments in favour are plain, particularly in regard to sparsely-populated rural areas, because it takes a great deal of petrol and manpower to deliver in small quantities, as well as making it more difficult for coal merchants who are doing a most difficult job. Therefore, I believe that it would be most advantageous if this part of the Direction were cancelled. The Minister need not be frightened of abuse, that people would try to hoard coal, or buy it merely to hold a stock of it. Certainly not. Coal is much too expensive these days for people to buy it merely to have a stock. The price is the restricting factor in domestic consumption today. The Minister should trust his own judgment and take this step and not be over-influenced by his Department on this matter.
  There can be only two reasons for the maintenance of this Direction. The first is that the Minister is not happy about the stocks he has in hand or about the estimated production he is expecting in future. The other day, while making in

  2009
  quiries locally, I was told that the reason for the shortage of coal in South Warwickshire was twofold—first, because of the exports of coal, and secondly because 3,000 people had left the mines since the abolition of the direction of labour. I am told that is the reason that has been given by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. If this is so, it is most serious, and we would like to hear from the hon. Gentleman whether that is the case. If it is not the case, there can be only one other reason for this restriction on delivery, and that is that if every domestic consumer took up the total amount to which he is entitled under this Direction there would not be enough coal to go round. This argument is borne out by a Written Answer given by the Minister of Fuel and Power on 27th March, in which he said:
  "… to allow some consumers to stock during the summer the full quantity permitted for the whole year, would imperil the principle of fair shares for all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1950; Vol. 473, c. 13.]
  That leads me to the second point of my argument, that this Direction as it stands is most misleading. I do not believe there is enough relation between the notional entitlement and actual deliveries. It is all very fine to talk about an allowance of 50 cwt. of domestic coal per annum, but it does not mean anything if you are not going to get it. There are many parts of the country where people are not getting anything like their entitlement and it is causing much hardship and a great deal of misunderstanding. By way of example, may I read part of a letter I have received from a lady in the little village of Fenny Compton? She writes that her mother is aged 82, and is a chronic invalid, and she goes on:
  "The stuff now being sold under the name of coal is poor enough in all conscience. If only one could ascertain the exact quantity which is supposed to be our ration and if only we could be sure that coal dealers receive their full amount to meet the ration, it would be much better for us all. I believe the whole village has been very short of coal since Christmas."
  That is only one case. I am sure hon. Members could give many more similar cases. What people do not understand is that this is an all-embracing notional entitlement and not what they can necessarily get. No wonder people are muddled. The point is made doubly
  2010
  plain by a letter which a coal merchant in my constituency received from the Ministry of Fuel and Power, dated 3rd April It says:
  "You will no doubt be aware that the average amount of coal available for domestic consumers has in recent years been appreciably less than the permitted quantities."
  What is the good of having an entitlement when people do not manage to get anything like the total which is supposed to be their right? I do not believe the people are getting a true picture at all. The picture in South Warwickshire, I know, is one of shortage. We have a shortage everywhere in my constituency and this shortage persists. We are getting letters and complaints from all over the place. At Long Compton, the vicar had to write to the Member of Parliament. [Laughter.] It is all very well to laugh because it happens to be a small village, but it is representative of many other villages all over the country. And, after all, the vicar is supposed to look after spiritual fuel and not household fuel. Hon. Members opposite say "He should not"—he would not need to if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister was doing his job properly. The vicar wrote:
  "There are many people in this village who have been without any coal for the last month or so."
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite sit there and laugh. It seems to my hon. Friends on this side that where hon. Gentlemen opposite come up against the real views of poor people, all they can do is sit back and laugh. So much for Dorking talking: this is humanity speaking. I will quote only one more case. It is right that we should rub this in. We are seeking to have this General Direction annulled because we believe it to be wrong. This letter was written to me on 11th May by the clerk of the Alcester Rural District Council. He writes:
  "I have received more complaints during the last three months than I have received during the last whole three years about coal shortages."
  Under the Government's present arrangements, when there is a deficiency in the delivery of the coal quota to merchants at the end of any quarterly period, that deficiency is written off altogether, instead of being carried over to the next quarter as it should be. What would happen if a private company were to

  2011
  say, "We are sorry, but we cannot deliver your order for motorcars this month and therefore we are not going to carry it over to the next month"? What will happen if the steel industry is nationalised and comes under the control of the Government and takes the same view on delivery deficiencies? As a consequence of this system they are about 30 or 40 per cent. deficient of the deliveries of coal in the Stratford area, which the people should get but which they will never get. What we want is less regulation and more relation between coal entitlement and coal deliveries. That is why I support this Prayer.
  11.21 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): Again we have the spectacle of the Tories making a great show for those whom they regard as the common people. Yet the natural consequence of their action tonight in trying to carry this Motion, if they succeeded, would be to take the lid off and allow what coal there was to go to the people who could afford to pay for it and leave the poor people whom they are trying to support to go without.
  The hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes) who opened this Debate, would not, I know, willingly or knowingly mislead the House: but he did say that this Direction had not been debated before. It was. On that occasion it was a political stunt. It was at the time we were discussing the Gas Bill and were occupied for hours on end in the Committee stage. The Tories were running around looking for all kinds of Orders and things to keep the Minister and myself in this House while they were running upstairs to the Committee stage of that Bill—[Interruption.] Mind your own business, I will deal with this in my own way and make my own speech.
  Mr. Eden: Was the hon. Gentleman addressing me?
  Mr. Robens: No, I was speaking to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Buchan-Hepburn), who is about to resume his seat. He told me to "pipe down." If he wants me to pipe down, let him stand on his feet and say so in the House.
  Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: All right. Pipe down.
  Mr. Robens: And my answer to the hon. Gentleman, which was perfectly audible, was for him to mind his own business, and I will make my own speech and deal with this matter in my own way.
  Again, I say it was a Tory stunt on the occasion of the Gas Bill. What was the reason given then? The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor)—I am sorry he is not in his place—said "The Government are hoping to accumulate coal so that they can release larger quantities and increase the allowance at the time the next General Election approaches." I am sorry the hon. Member is not here to have those words thrown back into his teeth. It shows once again that, instead of debating this Prayer on the basis of the public interest and the common good, it was done deliberately as a purely political stunt.
  What is the purpose of this Direction? It is to parcel out the meagre allowance of coal—if hon. Gentlemen like that term—that is available for the domestic market. There has never been on any occasion any suggestion that the maximum permitted quantity was in fact available to all consumers. Indeed, the only reason for having the maximum permitted quantity is to prevent those who can take a lot from taking more and thereby depriving other people of their supply. What we have always tried to do is to make up the amount. [HON. MEMBERS: "What rot."] The hon. Gentlemen say, "What rot." That shows the standard of intelligence one has to deal with in this House. We have tried to provide as much coal as is possible for the domestic market, and to that extent I agree that the maximum permitted quantity has never been reached. To reach it, if everybody took the full amount, would require another seven million tons for the domestic market.
  You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would properly, I suppose, rule me out of order if I were to follow the hon. Gentleman and and talk of production, though I would be willing to discuss Marshall Aid figures with him or with anyone else, if that were permissible; but at least I can say that in 1949 the total deep-mined production was 202.7 million tons. Open

  2013
  cast production was 12.4 million tons. So there was a total disposable production of 215.1 million tons. How did we allocate it? I hope hon. Members will say precisely where they would make the cut of seven million tons to provide the maximum permitted quantity to every domestic consumer.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: May I make one suggestion, since the hon. Gentleman asks for suggestions? Would it not be more fair, in the first place, if the National Coal Board, as retail agents, received the same amount of coal for distribution as the ordinary merchant?
  Mr. Robens: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making an assertion which I am not prepared to accept, namely, that the National Coal Board, on its retail side, is favoured in comparison with the ordinary retail merchant. But I do not want to be sidetracked on to small matters of that kind, because if one takes the whole of the retail trade of the National Coal Board it will not amount to an ounce of coal for the rest of the domestic consumers. I must follow this matter before I sit down. We have shown that there were 215.1 million tons of coal in 1949. The gas industry took 25.3 million tons; the electricity industry took 30 million tons; the railways, 14.7 million tons; the coke ovens, 22.5 million tons; the iron and steel industry, 8.4 million tons; other industries, 34.5 million tons; domestic consumers, 30.8 million tons; miscellaneous consumers, 29.1 million tons; exports and bunkers, 19.3 million tons.
  The internal consumption of this country is rising rapidly, and that is the measure of the full employment policy which the Government have brought into being. We could have plenty of coal for the domestic market if coke ovens were taking millions of tons less; if the gas and iron and steel industries were taking millions of tons less. The hon. Gentleman keeps bleating about producing more. But one must deal with facts. One cannot hand out coal which is not produced. But we are not debating coal production tonight. We are debating the amount to be allocated to domestic consumers out of the coal which is produced. There have been plenty of opportunities, in the coal Debates and
  2014
  on Supply days, to discuss coal, we have discussed it many times; but tonight we are not dealing with production. I should be quite willing to talk about it if it were within the bounds of order.
  I am showing the House that out of 215.1 million tons of coal, we have used 195–3 million tons internally because we have full employment. That is a matter of fact which ought to be remembered. If we face up to 19.3 million tons of coal for exports and bunkers, all we have left for the domestic market is 30.8 million tons. With that amount available for the home market, what does the Opposition want to do? They say we should take the lid off and let people have a free fight for what they can get. If you were well in with the coal industry you would be all right, and if you had plenty of money and storage accommodation, you would be all right——
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Who said that?
  Mr. Robens: The hon. and gallant Member asks who said that. The very fact that the Opposition have put down a Motion to annul the Direction—[Interruption.] Annul the Direction in the Division lobbies, and the lid is taken off. That is the natural consequence of this Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is. The Tory party are very loud-voiced about this so-called protection for the people at large, but in fact they are not concerned about the people at large. They are concerned with being as popular as they can, with an eye on a few votes, at any impending General Election. No one more than His Majesty's Government would like to increase the domestic coal ration, so that we could supply what we know much more about than hon. Members opposite, and that is the real needs of the ordinary people living in ordinary working-class homes. These people, whom we represent, are largely the people who are burning coal in old-fashioned grates; not the friends of hon. Members opposite. [Interruption.] Oh, yes; hon. Gentlemen know that is true.
  Now I will turn to the outlook for this year. I say at once that I very much regret that there seems no possibility of a large increase for the domestic market. We have explained in the Economic Survey for 1950 that the supply will be between 218 million and 223 million tons,

  2015
  including coal from opencast workings. Let me explain, in passing, that only five per cent. of the domestic coal allocation is composed of opencast production. Domestic consumption is about 600,000 tons a week, and only about 30,000 tons are opencast coal. As production is going, it looks as though we shall be at the lower level of 218 million tons, or slightly above that figure. Even when one gets extra supplies from the pits, we have also to remember that the large coal out of the increased production is only about one-third of the increased supply. So, for 1950, the likely increase in production from the pits will not produce for the domestic consumer, the 7 million tons of large coal which would be required for the maximum permitted quantities to be supplied in full.
  So hon. Members opposite have to cut industrial users, steel plants, gas, electricity, or the railways, or they have to do as we suggest, and keep the maximum permitted quantity where it is, and then do one's best from month to month to supply as much as one possibly can to the domestic market. We, on this side, fully realise the difficulties which housewives, and other people in ordinary homes, suffer as a result of the shortage of coal; but we dare not increase the domestic supply if we have as a result to cut supplies to one of the vital industries which I have mentioned. That, in its wake, would bring unemployment; and for that, and the other reasons I have given, I ask the House to reject this Motion.
  Mr. Bracken: The violent verbiage which we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary is no answer to the very carefully considered argument put forward by my hon. Friends. I dare say that hon. Members opposite, once again, will jeer at this side of the House when we maintain that the future of Britain today very largely rests on the coal industry. Britain rose to her greatness through the coal industry, and through that industry and its by-products prosperity will once again, we hope, be restored to Britain.
  When we put down this Prayer, we hoped that we would have a serious answer from the Minister. We have had admissions. For instance, the Minister
  2016
  told us—I wrote down his words—that the consumer has not received the quantity of coal nor the quality that he required.
  Mr. Robens: I never mentioned quality.
  Mr. Bracken: All right—the quantity. My hon. Friends put down this Prayer on the basis that the consumer did not receive the quantity. The Government have admitted that, and the Minister showed quite clearly how right we were to put down this Prayer. Furthermore, we must rest our case for the time being on these submissions and I must remind the Minister, who has from time to time quoted the National Coal Board, that its Chairman, Lord Hyndley, recently declared that our whole economic position was imperilled because we are not producing the amount of coal that the country needs both for its home and its export trade.
  Mr. Robens: This has nothing to do with this Prayer.
  Mr. Bracken: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who certainly has not been at his best tonight, is not going to repudiate Lord Hyndley.
  Mr. John Cooper: The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) has not been very good.
  Mr. Bracken: But the Minister also gave us an invitation. He said that we can choose at any time to have a full Debate on coal. Well, we accept that invitation. In my judgment, the coal situation, on both the production side and the distribution side, is one of the most serious menaces to our recovery. Therefore, on behalf of my hon. Friends, I accept the Minister's invitation. We shall ask at the first possible opportunity for a Debate on coal. We shall base ourselves on the admissions made by the Government's nominee, Lord Hyndley, and we hope to go very thoroughly into this. But we do not want to do it in any partisan sense. [Laughter.] Hon. Members are very hilarious. They obviously care very little for what is the most vital industry in this country, but we do, and I must say that rarely have I seen a Minister approach an industry of the importance of coal with such levity as the hon. Gentleman did tonight.

  2017
  I say to my hon. Friends—and I know they are extremely irritated and must be forgiven because of the really provocative speech made by the Minister—wait until we can get a full day to discuss coal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Vote, vote."] I was hoping to comment without interruption, but I was asked by hon. Members opposite to "vote, vote"; and then I read of them going round the country saying, "Our poor party is so strained by the weaker Tories; our Whips are in hospital, and it is very unfair to force votes from time to time." They can choose for themselves. If they want a lot of voting, they can have it. In my judgment, the coal industry ought to be above politics, and we hope to have an opportunity, and indeed we shall provide an opportunity, for the House to discuss the coal industry in a full Debate.
  11.40 p.m.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I only wish to detain the House for a few minutes because in recent weeks I have been balloting for an Adjournment Motion to deal with the question of distribution of coal and, if I can have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, this will save a Debate on an Adjournment Motion later.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the coal retailed by the National Coal Board would amount to only a few ounces over the whole country. I quite agree that that is so if it were distributed over the whole country, but in the borough of Congleton, in my constituency, it would amount to a considerable proportion. Recently, nine coal merchants came to see me. On two occasions they had had 50 and 10 per cent. cuts, on two occasions they had had 15 per cent. cuts, on two occasions 25 per cent. cuts, and on seven occasions they have had 8 per cent. cuts in their ration. It does seem—if I could have the attention of the hon. Gentleman——
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): He is taking notes.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I am much obliged. I thought he was talking to the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) behind him.
  Mr. James Hudson: Why should he not?
  Air-Commodore Harvey: If these cuts are to be made, why cannot the National Coal Board advertise in the local newspapers, so that people will know that cuts are being made? I put that forward as a suggestion, trying to make a better feeling when coal is not available, so that people can understand.
  In the Borough of Congleton the National Coal Board have, at the Land Sales Wharf, a depot where coal is unloaded and distributed by their own retailers and coal merchants. The National Coal Board retailers have first choice of coal out of the truck and local merchants second choice. The Home Secretary sniggers at that, but I see nothing funny about it. My constituents are very sore about it. They see the customers of the National Coal Board getting their full ration but the local merchants are cut week after week during the whole of the winter, and I say this is deliberately done to squeeze the small merchant completely out of business. While I do not agree with what the merchants suggest—they feel it better for the Coal Board to pay them out and finish with them—I think it would be far better to distribute coal equitably among the National Coal Board retailers and local merchants, so that what is available is fairly distributed.
  11.44 p.m.
  Mr. Raikes: When I moved this Prayer, I stated that I moved it in the hope that I would get from the other side of the House a statement to show that either now or at a slightly later stage-the Government would be in a position to increase the ceiling. From the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, it is quite obvious that under the present set-up we have not got the coal to increase the ceiling, either at present or this year. In view, however, of the hon. Gentleman's offer to have a full Debate on coal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Question put, and negatived.

  DISPLACED PERSONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]
  11.45 p.m.
  Major Tufton Beamish: I am fortunate this evening in having an opportunity of raising the question of the future of displaced persons in and outside Europe when the International Refugee Organisation ceases to exist. As a result of the war and as a result of the Potsdam and Yalta Agreements it is awful to think that more than 20,000,000 persons in Europe became homeless, while during the first two years after the war 7,500,000 people were voluntarily repatriated to 44 different countries.
  Early in 1947 I had the very interesting experience of going with two hon. Members opposite—now junior Ministers—to visit D.P. camps in Austria and Germany on behalf of the Foreign Secretary and it was during that time that I found a great interest in this very human subject. There were then 841,000 D.P.s throughout Germany and Austria with 328,000 in the British zone, those figures including Jews but excluding Volksdeutsche and Reichsdeutsche. There were also between 150,000 and 200,000 Volksdeutsche in Austria and a considerably larger number in Germany. There were also 47,000 D.P.s in Italy. I should be the first to admit that U.N.R.R.A. and the Control Commission in Germany did very fine work indeed in connection with this very large problem, but what is the picture now? I have quoted what information I have been able to collect and I am sure the Minister, with his greater resources, will be able to supplement and correct me when he replies.
  The International Refugee Organisation -took over the responsibility for the D.P.s in June, 1947, 18 months after the General Assembly of the United Nations had described the D.P. problem as one of "immediate urgency." The I.R.O., in very little time, has done excellent work and it would take me a long time to recount some of the things they have done; but one fact seems to be outstanding and that is that with the help of scores of international voluntary agencies they have re-established over 600,000 refugees. Of those, only 65,000 returned to their
  2020
  own homes and 538,000 were re-settled as emigrants in more than 80 countries and territories. I think that is a very fine achievement indeed.
  It is estimated, none the less, that in spite of the great efforts made and all the efforts which will be made there will probably remain in Germany and in Austria at the end of this year between 50,000 and 100,000 D.P.s who, for one reason or another, will not be able to fend for themselves without public assistance of some kind. These people include large numbers of children, many of them orphans, the halt, the maim, the blind and the sick. These are undoubtedly the saddest cases of all, as any hon. Member who has seen them will be the first to agree. At one time the I.R.O. thought that the hard core—a horrible phrase—would be as great as 180,000. The lowest estimate I have shows they could be reduced to 35,000 if relatives were separated from the old and the young and the sick, though that is a solution which I feel we in this House would quickly reject.
  To give one example, and only one, from those countries, I would quote the example of 38 senior Yugoslav officers of whom quite a number were generals. They fought against the Germans when they invaded Yugoslavia in 1941. Taken prisoner, they spent four years as prisoners-of-war in very poor conditions indeed. Then they spent five years in D.P. camps in conditions very little better. Now they find themselves forced upon the German unemployed market, and with no future of any kind at all.
  These cases are pathetic. I have met a number of these officers myself. This is one example of many cases of which the Under-Secretary, I am sure, is well aware. How many displaced persons are available for care by the I.R.O. I am not sure because the figures are not easy to obtain, but it is something between 150,000 and 200,000. Over and above these, there are many thousands of refugees from Communist dominated countries of Eastern and Central Europe who have not been entitled to I.R.O. or international care of any kind at all.
  Every day these brave and unfortunate people are finding their way across what is known as the "green frontier" to escape the fear and miseries of the police

  2021
  States in which they now live. The number of Poles arriving every month in the American zone of Germany is 100, in the British zone 70, and in the French zone 15. This is, I believe, a considerable under-estimate because many are anxious not to endanger their relatives who remain in Poland by disclosing the fact that they have escaped from their own country.
  Next we have the colossal problem—and "colossal" is the only word to use in this connection—caused by the fact that 7½ million Germans from the pre-1939 Poland and also from Sudeten Czechoslovakia, have found refuge in the Western zones. If there are added the 1½ million Germans from the Russian-occupied zone who have found a similar refuge in the Christian West, this makes a total of 9 million Germans surplus to the normal population of the three zones. This last problem, like the refugees from Eastern and Central Europe, is a continuing one, and during the last months of 1949, the refugee Germans were arriving in the Western zones at the rate of more than 1,000 a day. I should say that the figure is now much less, and that they are now arriving at the rate of 200 a day, though it may well increase again. All this imposes a very great strain on the German economy, a fact that is recognised by leading Germans, particularly Dr. Hans Lukaschek who has recently suggested that if plans could be made for I million Germans to emigrate they would find favour with the Bonn Government.
  Although this is slightly outside the scope of this Debate, if we add the fact that 700,000 Greeks, one-tenth of the Greek population, were rendered homeless during the fighting in Greece and that they have not been subject to I.R.O. care; the fact that 23,000 Greek children were kidnapped during the civil war-remembering what a fuss was made when the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped—the fact that there are 774,000 Arab refugees from Palestine; the fact that there is the immense problem of refugees in Pakistan and India, and an even greater problem in China, of which we know nothing at all, we see how vast this problem is and to what exent it urgently demands the most careful attention of the Christian world.
  2022
  The I.R.O. comes to an end early in 1951. I am not for one moment criticising the great efforts which many countries have made to solve this terrible human problem, intentionally created in many ways by Marshal Stalin to embarrass the non-Communist part of the world. If anybody doubts that that is the case, he has only to read what the Communists say about displaced persons. In the "Soviet News" recently, displaced persons' camps were described as "asylums for Nazis, quislings, war criminals and adventurers," and it was suggested that they should be liquidated as soon as possible.
  What is to be put in the place of the I.R.O. to cope with this still unsolved and continuing problem? I hope the Under-Secretary will be more forthcoming this evening than he was in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) a week or two ago. How is the new High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva to be represented in foreign countries? How will he be represented in this country as the I.R.O. is represented now? Will the new organisation be concerned in any way with resettlement? Are we to stop the great schemes of resettlement that have been arranged and carried out successfully? Who is to receive and support refugees when they have got away to Western countries from Communist countries? Are they to be left to the mercy of the Germans—admittedly tender mercy at the moment, but Governments come and go, and change. Who is to provide legal and political protection for them? Who is to classify them? Who is to ensure that these classifications have no loopholes? What is to be the nature of the new organisation, and how is it to be financed?
  It is no use saying we have done well to solve so much of the problem. We have done well, though perhaps not well enough, but the job is still unfinished. We should make a terrible mistake if we did not accept this open challenge to Christian democracy. Our consciences should be pricking us, and I am asking the Government to take a lead in this matter now, as they have done in the past. A proportion of these persons, other than German expellees, may well wish to stay in Germany, though my information is

  2023
  that it is likely to be a very small proportion. What safeguards will be provided to ensure that in future no pressure is put on displaced persons in Germany to return to their own country? During the last few years voluntary organisations have expended a great deal of their time and energy in helping to solve this huge problem. Will there be a place for those voluntary organisations in the future, and will their help be welcomed? I very much hope that will be the case.
  If all the non-Communist countries who are members of the United Nations would take a small number of the few thousand of those who remain, other than Germans, the problem would be a long way towards solution. We would then find the machinery coping quickly and successfully with the problem of finding suitable homes for those who come from the Cominform bloc of countries. Resettlement for these people is obviously essential; it is awful to think that they are simply to be thrown into the German unemployed pool. What a fate for people who have sacrificed everything they hold dear. The Western countries can receive these people. Let us, in receiving them, beware of over-emphasising—though we cannot ignore it—the security angle, bearing in mind that we have all too many home-grown spies.
  In a letter from the Foreign Office dated 16th February, written to Lord Beveridge, who was representing the Refugees' Defence Committee, they say that the number of refugees requiring care and maintenance has been reduced sufficiently to enable them to be integrated into the public assistance systems of the countries of present residence. That is an extremely callous statement. The week before last there was a statement following the Foreign Ministers' Conference on this subject which shows clearly that the Government have had second thoughts. I was delighted to see, in that second statement, that they recognise that the excess population from which several countries in Western Europe are suffering is one of the most important elements in the difficulties and disequilibrium of the world. That is a very important recognition, indeed, and a very definite step forward. I hope the Minister will amplify that statement.
  2024
  It is intolerable that free countries should leave this awful and urgent problem unsolved. It may be that the I.R.O. is being wound up too soon and at the wrong time. It may be that there is some other solution. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, has expressed himself as being uneasy about the future of displaced persons and has said that there is possibly greater need now for the work of an organisation like the I.R.O. than there was at the end of the cessation of hostilities. My right hon. Friend said that in the House on 28th March. I was glad to hear him express that view, which I think all my hon. Friends share and hon. Members opposite share, too. We may be making a terrible mistake. I hope I am wrong and that the Government will give me a reassuring reply to-night.
  12.3 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) has presented his case. I was glad that at the outset he gave credit to the work which has been done by the International Refugee Organisation and I would like to pay tribute to that organisation for its very fine work, which is shortly coming to an end. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman would deny that His Majesty's Government have been very conscious of this problem right from the early days following the war and that our record is second to no other country. In fact, we have resettled more displaced persons in this country than has any other country in theirs. Therefore, I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman can consider that in our record there has been anything callous whatsoever.
  We admit, however, that this remains a serious problem and an urgent problem: We think we are still tackling it with seriousness and that the manner in which it is being tackled is the only one which can result in final resettlement and the dispersal of this problem. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated, the I.R.O. comes to an end on 31st March, 1951. The responsibility for the legal and political protection of the refugees who remain will then rest on the High Commissioner

  2025
  who has not yet been appointed by the General Assembly of the United Nations but who will take up his appointment on 1st January, 1951. The responsibility for their material welfare will rest with the Governments where these refugees continue to live. I would like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be clear that the High Commissioner, when appointed, will be responsible only for the legal and political protection of refugees and that the responsibility for those who remain becomes that of the local Governments concerned.
  I will give the hon. and gallant Member a few figures, which will confirm some of the figures he gave, and amplify others. It is true that the original total registered with the I.R.O. up to 28th February this year was 1,369,000. Of these 69,000 were repatriated, and no fewer than 723,000 were re-settled. That left a balance of 577,000 on 28th February this year. It is estimated that by 30th June this year there will remain 405,000. But the hon. and gallant Member should be aware of the fact that of that number more than one half are self-supporting and that the hard core which remains is about 187,000. Of these a large proportion, probably the vast majority, it will be possible to re-settle.
  On the question of German refugees, the figure which the hon. and gallant Member gave, namely, 9 million, is approximately correct. That is a large number of persons to swell the population of the restricted territories of the Federal Republic, but the fact remains that these are Germans. They are in Germany, they are now the responsibility of the German Government, so it is not a problem of repatriation or re-settlement. It is largely a problem of absorbing these Germans into the German economy. Thereby it becomes, as it were, a population problem rather than a refugee problem. One solution will ultimately lie in increased employment and rehousing, and in some facilities, which will obviously be necessary, for migration.
  Major Beamish rose——
  Mr. Davies: The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave me only about 12 minutes in which to reply, and if he wants me to answer a few of his questions, I do not think I can allow him to interrupt me now.
  2026
  I think that the Foreign Ministers, by their statement on migration, showed that they were aware of the problem of these Germans inside Germany. They made it clear that experts are to be appointed to examine this problem. It is too early for one to anticipate what the findings of those experts will be, but it is a problem of which the Foreign Ministers were well aware, and one which they have taken steps to attempt to solve, as investigations and inquiries are now to take place into the matter. I would say that the I.R.O. will come into this, as it has been very much concerned with the whole problem of migration.
  Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the political refugees. That, of course, is not anything like as big a problem as the problem of the displaced persons, and the Germans inside Germany. I say that because most of these, and they amount to about 800 a month at present coming from the Iron Curtain countries into the West, are persons who, once they get across the borders, filter through to other countries where they have relatives, and their problem is solved one way or another.
  Major Beamish: No.
  Mr. Davies: Most of these 800 come into Germany, and about 120 a month come into Austria. The number of these people is nowhere near comparable to those involved in the other problems. There are tragedies and human problems, because each refugee is a human problem. But it is not an insuperable problem, because the numbers involved are smaller, and there are often special reasons why their problem can be tackled. So, as far as these refugees are concerned, while we admit the size and degree of the problem, we think that the way it is already being tackled by the appointment of the High Commissioner and by the placing of the responsibility for the absorption of the Germans on the German Federal Republic, is meeting the problem.
  I want to say a few words about the Arab refugees because that is another section of refugees which constitutes a very difficult problem at present. There are some 900,000 who are receiving relief under the United Nations' Relief for Palestine scheme, but their solution lies, without prejudicing the possibility of their

  2027
  return to their original homes, in their re-settlement and employment. The United Nations have established a Relief and Works Agency for the Palestine refugees, and it will carry on in collaboration with the Middle East Governments. The cost of the programme under consideration amounts to some 54 million dollars, and that is a very large sum.
  The United States Government has already asked Congress to contribute half of that amount, and the United Kingdom Government has already indicated that it will allocate a considerable sum. I informed the House recently, in reply to a Question, that His Majesty's Government was contributing £2½ million, which is equal to 7 million dollars; but that sum is inclusive of the £1 million interest-free loan granted to the Jordan Government for the purpose of carrying out a works project in connection with the resettlement of Arab refugees. His Majesty's Government is now proposing to increase this contribution, again inclusive of the loan to Jordan, to the equivalent of 9 million dollars.
  I think that, by making this further contribution, His Majesty's Government is showing quite clearly that it has full concern for the refugee problem, and that we are contributing to the maximum of our resources. We have given large
  2028
  sums to the I.R.O., and we have contributed largely to the Palestine refugees; and we have, of course, through contributions to Germany since the end of the war, helped towards the solution of the big problem in that area. So, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will agree that we have done a great deal, that a great deal is being done, and that, in having taken the initiative in the early days, as regards a solution of the refugee problem, Britain's record stands as an example to other countries. I hope that that initiative will be followed by others in the effort to solve the problems still facing us.
  Mr. Grimond: The Under-Secretary has told us that he hopes that some of the refugees will be re-settled, and in that connection, I should like to ask what authority will take over once the I.R.O. has been wound up.
  Mr. Davies: The High Commissioner is responsible for their political status, but so far as the extent to which they have not been re-settled is concerned, the I.R.O., so long as any money remains, will be responsible.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Malayan Forces (Wireless Equipment)
  Malayan Forces (Wireless Equipment)
  Stores Depot, Chatham (Closing)
  Stores Depot, Chatham (Closing)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  New Town Corporation, Harlow (Membership)
  New Town Corporation, Harlow (Membership)
  "Red House," Bexley Heath
  "Red House," Bexley Heath
  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (DOCKERS' FAMILIES)
  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (DOCKERS' FAMILIES)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Round trip excursions (Customs)
  Round trip excursions (Customs)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  British Tourists, France (Car Allowance)
  British Tourists, France (Car Allowance)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Utility Rayon Goods (Inquiry Committee)
  Utility Rayon Goods (Inquiry Committee)
  Street Traders (Prosecution)
  Street Traders (Prosecution)
  Furniture Exports
  Furniture Exports
SCOTLAND
  Coast Erosion (Grants)
  Coast Erosion (Grants)
  Illegal Fishing (Report)
  Illegal Fishing (Report)
  Financial Relations
  Financial Relations
  Regulation 42D
  Regulation 42D
  Smallpox Outbreak
  Smallpox Outbreak
  Grass and Marginal Land (Fertilisers)
  Grass and Marginal Land (Fertilisers)
  Foreign Workers (Pay)
  Foreign Workers (Pay)
  Labour Hire Charges
  Labour Hire Charges
  Unstaffed Hospital Beds
  Unstaffed Hospital Beds
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Cruden Houses
  Cruden Houses
  Planning Regulations (Decontrol)
  Planning Regulations (Decontrol)
  Allotments Bill
  Allotments Bill
  Stranded Whales, East Lothian
  Stranded Whales, East Lothian
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS
  War Pensioners' Vehicles (Running Cost)
  War Pensioners' Vehicles (Running Cost)
  Disabled Persons (Invalid Chairs)
  Disabled Persons (Invalid Chairs)
COAL INDUSTRY
  North-East Essex
  North-East Essex
  Household Supplies
  Household Supplies
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  National Savings Committee Offices, London
  National Savings Committee Offices, London
  Office Buildings
  Office Buildings
  SCOTS OATS (PRICES)
  SCOTS OATS (PRICES)
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons, York
  Disabled Persons, York
  Unemployed Persons (Statistics)
  Unemployed Persons (Statistics)
  Blind Persons (Report)
  Blind Persons (Report)
  AGRICULTURE (SUBSIDIES)
  AGRICULTURE (SUBSIDIES)
  TEACHERS' SALARIES
  TEACHERS' SALARIES
Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Earl of Minto—Took the Oath.
NORWICH EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
  DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BRITISH SUBJECTS AND INTERESTS IN HUNGARY
2.36 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether commercial negotiations with Hungary have already been suspended owing to the maltreatment of British subjects and interests; whether another such case has just occurred, and whether in view of the Hungarian refusal to pay compensation for British property that has been nationalised, His Majesty's Government will now sever commercial relations with the Hungarian Government.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, negotiations for a trade agreement with the Hungarian Government were broken off on December 19 last because the Hungarian Government refused to allow a British Consular officer to visit Mr. Sanders, who was at that time in gaol awaiting trial. Recently, another British subject, Mr. Lamerton, was held incommunicado for three and a half weeks and then expelled from Hungary. A protest has been made by the British Minister but no satisfaction has been received. This repeated ill-treatment of British subjects in Hungary is a regrettable reflection of the conditions of life in that country.
382
As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government have consistently maintained that no commercial agreement could be negotiated with the Hungarian Government which did not include provision for the compensation of those British subjects and companies who have suffered loss by the nationalisation of property in Hungary. So far as I am aware, the Hungarian Government have not actually refused to pay compensation. Their position is that they will be unable to compensate British subjects so long as they are unable, as at present, to earn sterling by regularly selling goods to the United Kingdom. This is not an unreasonable attitude on their part and it is certainly not such as to warrant the drastic action suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is a fact that in 1948 we took 40 per cent. of Hungary's exportable agricultural surplus, which represented.4 per cent. of our imports? Is not the margin between 40 per cent. and.4 per cent. the measure of our capacity to enforce respect for British interests and British subjects? I should be glad if the noble Lord would verify that figure.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I was going to say that the noble Lord would not expect me to answer a question on details of that sort. I shall be very glad to look into it.
LORD VANSITTART: There is one other point I should like to put arising out of this question. The trouble began by Hungary expelling two British representatives. We then expelled one Hungarian. They now expel three British subjects and we expel one Hungarian. If we always—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I rise on a point of order. I must point out to the noble Lord that it is against the Rules of the House to make anything purporting to be a speech on a starred question. He can only ask questions arising out of the answer.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the reply, do I understand the noble Lord to suggest that exports from Hungary to this country are being pre, vented? Am I to understand that the

383
existing trade relations between the two countries prevent Hungary making exports to this country?
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, there is no trade agreement between the two countries at the present time.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I was asking a question. I was asking whether it was a fact that this began by the expulsion of two British subjects and one Hungarian and then three British subjects and one Hungarian. The point of my question is this: if we continue to get the worse of the exchange, will it not operate as putting a premium on less and less respect being paid to us?
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I cannot admit that we are getting the worse of the exchange.

BRITISH CZECHOSLOVAK FRIENDSHIP LEAGUE
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government why retaliation has been enfeebled by allowing the British Czechoslovak Friendship League to continue to function.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the British Czechoslovak Friendship League is not an official Czechoslovak organisation but a British institution with British executive officers. It is therefore in a different position from organs of the Czechoslovak Embassy. His Majesty's Government consider that the Czechoslovak Government's action in suppressing British cultural and information activities in Prague, despite the terms of the Anglo-Czechoslovak Cultural Convention, has abundantly revealed their true attitude towards Anglo-Czechoslovak cultural collaboration. They trust that all British subjects associated with the League will draw appropriate conclusions from this fact. A close watch is being kept on the activities of the League.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, was not this the organisation from which Sir William Lawther resigned on the ground that, as he put it, it was a "stooge of the
384
Cominform"?—in which I think he was right. And was not the secretary fairly recently expelled for illicit activities? Is it not also subsidised by the Czechoslovak Government? And finally, does it not distribute an organ called Czechoslovak Life, when we have no such facilities in Czechoslovakia at all? In all the circumstances, does this really amount to retaliation at all?
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I have said that the British-Czechoslovak Friendship League is a British institution and I should doubt very much whether action could be taken against it unless it committed a breach of British law.
LORD VANSITTART: But, my Lords, this is still not retaliation, because they have something here which we have not there.

ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

CROP ACREAGE PAYMENTS (ENGLAND AND WALES) ORDER, 1950
CROP ACREAGE PAYMENTS (SCOTLAND) ORDER, 1950
CROP ACREAGE PAYMENTS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER, 1950
2.44 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, these Orders authorise acreage payments for 1950 crops of potatoes and rye, for which similar Orders were made last year. As your Lordships will be aware, these payments form part of the system of guaranteed returns for these crops. The rates of payment are those which were announced on March 17, 1949, following the February price review. The terms of the three Orders vary in some

385
measure to meet local circumstances. I beg to move that these Orders be now approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved. —(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE ACT (PART I) EXTENSION OF PERIOD ORDER, 1950
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, the object of this Order is to extend the operation of Section 4 of the Agriculture Act, 1947. Unless the period is extended by a year at a time by Order made by the Ministers no Order under that section can have effect after the expiration of three years from the passing of the Act; that is to say, after August 6, 1950. The only Orders so far made under Section 4 (1) of the Act have been Crop Acreage Payment Orders, and the immediate need for this Order is to ensure the validity after August 6, 1950, of the Crop Acreage Payments Orders for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I beg to move that this Special Order he now approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved. —(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MEDICAL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
2.47 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL LORD CHERWELL rose to draw attention to the economic situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, every Spring since the war your Lordships have been accustomed to discuss the country's economic position in the light of the Budget and the Government's Economic Survey. Unfortunately for your Lordships, it has fallen to my lot each time to weary the House on these topics. Each time for five years now my speeches seem to have run
386
on similar lines: on the one hand, a warning about the precarious state of our balance of trade, and, on the other, a warning about the danger of inflation owing to high taxes, unrequited exports, excessive capital expenditure and so on. Every year the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, replies, with his accustomed charm and distinction, telling us how happy we ought to be about the great progress made under the guidance of the Government in the face of unexampled difficulties, and how wrong it is of me to call attention to the dangers which surround us instead of trusting the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever he may be.
In this respect, at any rate, the noble Lord reminds me very much of the charming air hostesses he employs, who trip up and down the gangway when the aircraft is in peril, assuring the passengers that there is nothing to worry about and that they are quite safe in the charge of their gaunt, austere pilot. Doubtless we shall hear much the same sort of speech to-day, and if it does not entirely reassure noble Lords on this side of the House, no doubt it will cheer the noble Lord's supporters, who are anxiously seeking some sand in which to bury their heads. I trust they have returned refreshed from their week-end at Dorking, and relieved, at any rate for the moment, of the fear that the Aneurism, whose ominous pulsations have recently plagued their Party, is going to burst.
Since we last discussed these questions there has been one great change: we have a new Parliament, and although the people have not entirely succeeded in shaking off their shackles, the result of the Election has evidently shaken the Government's complacency. Various petty restrictions have been lifted, as we have always advocated; the petrol ration has been doubled; points rationing has gone; steel has in the main been freed, and even Mr. Dalton has graciously consented to allow the citizens of this country to carry out trivial building operations at their own expense without first presenting innumerable plans and forms for his approval. It is true that he described this as "an experiment in freedom," and warned us that if we abused it the restrictions would be reimposed. Cromwell in his heyday would scarcely have dared to use such language. Still, I suppose we should be grateful for the kindly condescension of a Socialist Minister who grants

387
us this chance to show how well we can behave and to prove that we would never do anything that Nanny would not like.
Though the changed Parliamentary situation has brought home to the Socialist Government that they can no longer ride roughshod over the British people, it has not yet convinced them of the error of their ways in the economic field. I will begin by considering the Budget. This is, or should be, the chief instrument by which the Government intervene in the country's economy. No one can say that much has been done in that direction this year. The only real change the Budget makes is to cut income tax on all incomes over £500 a year by about £10, at a cost of some £80,000,000, and to mulct the users of petrol by a corresponding amount. We are told, of course, that this switch is not intended to help the railways, whose deficit now that they are nationalised must be rather a headache to the Government. Naturally we, take the Government's word for this, and congratulate them on the fact that the only major change in the Budget is not part of a well-considered plan—it just happens to help the railways, by a surprising coincidence.
But if the Government did not intend to help the railways, what was the object of making these changes? Both the new taxes are bound to increase the cost of transport, and therewith the cost of production and the cost of living. It is no good the Government saying that the rise in prices will be set off by the reduction in the income tax, for the drop in the income tax will help the lowest-paid workers very little, and those below the exemption limit not at all. Yet they will have to bear the rise in the cost of coal and other things, just as much as the rest of the community. A fortiori, the new taxes will handicap our exports, for we shall have to charge the foreigner more for his goods. So far as he is concerned, this will in no way be offset by the fact that the people in England earning more than £10 a week will pay less tax. And with the revival of German and Japanese competition, this may be a serious matter. Unless this switch in the burden of taxes from the income tax payer to road transport was designed to help the railways, it is difficult to see why it was made, and since the Government repudiate this, the
388
only sensible interpretation of their action, it will be interesting to learn on what grounds they justify these two taxes.
There is one other point which I cannot resist mentioning in this connection. When Conservatives adumbrated the possibility of increasing the British petrol ration a couple of months ago the Daily Herald appeared with a banner headline, "Petrol or Food?" Although sterling oil is being sold all over the place for soft currency, and indeed in some cases without our receiving any cash return at all, the Minister of Fuel insisted in acrimonious terms that we in Britain could not possibly be given any more petrol since this would cost dollars. That seems to have gone by the board, and the ration is to be doubled. The nation's vote still means something.
But what are we to think of the Government's frenzy of indignation when an increase was proposed by the Conservatives? I do not complain in the slightest about the doubling of the British petrol ration—I believe that it was long overdue. What I do complain about is that Ministers should say one thing one day and do exactly the opposite the next. The country was deeply shocked last year that leading Government spokesmen should have denied categorically that there was any prospect of devaluation and then brought it into effect a few days later. Their behaviour concerning the petrol ration is another instance of the same sort of thing, on a much smaller scale of course, but with far less excuse. One used to be able to take Minister's words at their face value, but like our currency they seem to have been devalued in the last few years.
The only other point in the Budget which calls for comment is the retrospective clause which has the effect of imposing a fine of something like £100,000 each on two individuals who had entered into a perfectly legal financial agreement with the firms who employed them. Whether it was desirable or proper to make these arrangements, is neither here nor there. By common consent they were within the four corners of the law, and it is a most dangerous precedent, especially on such a trivial matter, to punish individuals retrospectively for actions which were perfectly legal when they were committed. As the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has pointed out,

389
this action flagrantly contradicts the Declaration of Human Rights. Life will become intolerable if everybody has to regulate his actions, not by the letter of the law but by reference to what someone may think ex post facto would have been proper. What would the Minister say if a new Government, retrospectively disallowed expenses and demanded payment of income and surtax? What seemed to me particularly nauseating was that this special clause was the only one which invoked an enthusiastic burst of applause from the Socialist Benches. Unlike Macaulay's Puritans, people with that sort of mentality would probably have approved of bear-baiting, just because it gave pain to the bear.
As usual, Socialist speeches in the Budget debate were punctuated with the irrelevant and misleading phrase "our policy of full employment." Every intelligent man knows, and every honest man admits, that this is the policy of all Parties. Equally, everybody with the intelligence quotient of a boy of five knows that the full employment which the country has enjoyed since the war is not due to any act of policy of the Government but to the fact that demand everywhere outstrips supply; and nothing could have prevented it except the failure to obtain the raw materials that we require. And from this failure we were saved, not by any stroke of policy but, on the Government's own admission, by the generous gifts and loans which were received from the United States and the Dominions. If we attack Socialism it is precisely because we believe that their policy—or rather their conduct, for it is difficult to discover in their actions anything coherent enough to call a policy—may end in our not being able to buy raw materials and thus bring about widespread unemployment. It is because we desire to maintain full employment that their flounderings cause us so much anxiety.
Let us glance at the Government's own estimate of what they are pleased—I suppose they are pleased—to call their policy. The Chancellor who I understand is considered by noble Lords opposite, to enjoy the special confidence of the Almighty, has himself described it. He said:
"Ever since the war we have tried to overcome our difficulties Sy a series of expedients which led to a series of crises as each expedient became exhausted."
390
Is that a policy? It is more like a sort of undulant fever, and one very exhausting for the patient. Government speakers oscillate so violently in their appreciation of the situation that lucid discussion is by no means easy. When things go wrong they are in the depths of despair and warn us of the danger of a tragic fall in our standard of life, and of widespread unemployment, and that our civilisation may fade and wither away. When an Election impends, or if the immediate danger seems to have passed, they go gay and tell us that there is no crisis—as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House did last week or a fortnight ago.
In February last year the Government spokesman told us to stop talking about Britain's recovery; that we had long passed that stage. He said:
"We are no longer interested in recovery but in new social and economic experiments."
A few months later another Government spokeman told us in lachrymose tones that it was a time of "supreme gravity"; that it was impossible not to feel disheartened after what we have done that we should again be facing such grave difficulties. He said:
"I hope you will forgive my emotion. We are at such a critical stage."
I suppose that is what Hollywood calls "the tear behind the smile." But this sort of hysterical instability, Himmelhoch jauchzend zu Tode betrubt, makes serious analysis rather difficult. Surely from a Government of planners we might expect some sort of consistency, some sort of endeavour to remove the fundamental disharmonies which they have created instead of piecemeal attempts to cure the symptoms by a succession of expedients.
Let me turn to the Economic Survey. There is a note of disillusionment about this year's Survey. Gone is the fine fresh enthusiasm with which the earlier numbers pretended to plan our future, distribute our man-power, allocate our materials and set us tasks or targets for the year. True, the Survey probably had to be drafted before the Election, which must have made things rather difficult for anyone not mentally ambidextrous. And all the Government had time for was to give themselves a pat on the back in italics in the final paragraph. This may be why the Survey is little more than a record of what has happened. Even this

391
record is not easy to disentangle. The man-power targets so hopefully set in the earlier issues do not seem to have been achieved, and apparently the Government have given up hope of achieving them. Admittedly, the progress made in providing labour for the under-manned industries is difficult to discover from the digest, so that it is not possible to be certain. This, I think, gives rise to just cause for complaint. Your Lordships may remember my mentioning last year that a new table had been inserted in the digest in which all the man-power categories had been changed. I expressed the fear that this might presage the disappearance of the old table, so that what had really happened would be hidden from public view. I understood the noble Lord to say that the old table would be continued parallel with the new. But, not for the first time, I was right and the noble Lord was wrong. The old table has vanished, and the well-known statistical device of changing all the categories has once more been allowed to cloud the issue.
Very properly the Survey bases its calculations upon the national production. Comparison between one year and the next may, I hope, not be too far out. And by selecting as the starting point the year 1946, when many men were still in the Forces and industrial production was only just turning over from war to peace, the Government have been able to give an impression of rapid progress. But I am glad to find that Government speeches are marred less often than they used to be by figures like 128 per cent., 135 per cent., and so on, purporting to give an exact comparison between present-day and pre-war productivity. They were based on a pamphlet from the Central Statistical Office which began by saying:
"It is impossible to obtain an exact measure and difficult to obtain even a rough idea of the comparative level of production before and after the war."
It is a pity that Government spokesmen who insisted so often on the accuracy of these figures should have overlooked this vital qualification.
No doubt your Lordships will have seen a very able analysis of this question by Professor Devons in Lloyds Bank Review, in which he shows that productivity figures varying from 105 per cent. to 124
392
per cent. may be derived with equal validity for production in 1949, compared with 1937, according to the weighting of the categories and so on. Having regard to the drop in productivity in mining, building and other industries, where it is easy to get a fairly accurate comparison, I am regretfully inclined to think that the lower figures are more likely to be correct. For certain pre-war periods, of course, we can measure the rise of national productivity with reasonable accuracy; and in the eleven years between the census of production in 1924 and 1935 we can make a reliable comparison. Despite the coal strike in 1926, and the slump in the early 1930's, productivity in this period went up by 34 per cent. But as all this happened during the so-called terrible years of Tory misrule, when the wicked capitalist was supposed to have swallowed all the profits and to have failed to re-equip his factories, when he is supposed to have restricted output in order to raise prices and so on, noble Lords opposite may prefer to forget it.
I will not detain the House many minutes discussing our general trade balance. The Chancellor congratulates himself that the total value of our exports in 1949 was within 10 per cent. of the value of our imports. But it would be sad if it were not so, seeing that more than 10 per cent. of them were given away. He boasts that our export prices are still fully competitive. After a 30 per cent. depreciation it would be strange if they were not. But he recognises, as we all must, the resurgence of the German and Japanese competition, and the dangers that this brings in its train. On the whole, however, the trade balance, like the political balance, shows a welcome improvement. We are still, unhappily, slightly "in the red." The Chancellor hopes to reverse this mischance—at any rate in the economic field: I do not know about the political field—before the next Budget. I am sure we all agree in congratulating management and labour, and all concerned in the export drive, on their great efforts.
The invisibles, as usual, require some elucidation. I have often pointed out the error so persistently repeated, that the fall in our invisible exports since the war is due to the sale of our foreign assets before Lend-Lease took effect. Actually, barely a quarter were sold; and the fall

393
in our dollar income due to this was very small. The deterioration in the position is mainly due to the extra interest we have been paying on the so-called sterling balances and, to an even greater extent, to the gigantic increase in Government spending abroad. Between 1945 and 1948 this last item had shrunk. But in 1949 it rose by £53,000,000 to £231,000,000, if we discount the non-recurrent war disposals which only confuse the issue. This is an ominous sign, which augurs ill for our future invisible balance. Once again we are mystified by the item headed "Other (net)." In 1947 it was £32,000,000; in 1948, £107,000,000. In 1949 it is given as £152,000,000. These are rather large sums to be treated in this cavalier fashion. Can we expect this welcome rise to continue? It is extremely important to know. Last year's figure was four times as big as the loss on receipts from interests, profits and dividends, about which we hear so much. I hope the noble Lord will be able to reassure us about this and tell us that the prospects are good.
I now turn to the economic condition at home. I realise how much noble Lords opposite like potassium oleate—I am sure they prefer the chemical formula to the vulgar term "soft soap." I regret that I am unable to offer the Government that warm meed of approval which they seem to expect the Opposition to ladle out to them. We all agree, I believe, that one of our principal objectives all along has been to avoid inflation. In war time, of course, this was very difficult. Everybody who was not positively bedridden was at work or in the Forces. And practically everybody was working overtime if his health permitted. In the last war, over 40 per cent. of the national effort was devoted to defeating the enemy. Consumer goods, therefore, were very scarce and in great demand. Yet in the last four years of the war the purchasing power of the pound fell less than in the first four years of peace. It really is rather shocking that the rate of inflation, which had risen only 4 per cent. a year between 1941 and 1945, should have risen at a rate of 5 per cent. a year between 1945 and 1949. And this applies only to retail prices. Wholesale prices have increased even faster. It is certainly not very reassuring that Socialist Chancellors in peace time should have been
394
less successful in resisting inflationary pressure than Conservative Chancellors during the war.
One of the things which has contributed greatly to the inflationary pressure has been the Government's vast capital expenditure. Everybody agrees that capital expenditure which tends to increase output is good, provided it does so within a reasonable period. Conversely, capital expenditure may be inevitable where there is a crying need—as, for instance, for houses to-day. We heard a good deal about housing in the 1945 Election. The Socialists were going to show us how to set about it; they were going to solve the problem in no time. Sir Stafford Cripps claimed that the housing problem would be clarified within a fortnight. Mr. Strachey said:
"A Labour Government is the only one that will get you that house."
Mr. Greenwood said:
"You want a home—Labour will do the job."
Even as late as 1946 Aneurin Bevan said:
"I give you this promise: that by the next General Election there will be no housing shortage."
Contrast these optimistic promises with the miserable performance. After five years of undisputed power, the building rate is scarcely half the rate achieved by private enterprise without any of this parade of drive and efficiency. And the waiting lists for houses are longer than ever.
It is astonishing whit what complacency the Government regard this failure. They actually planned to cut this derisory building programme this year, and no doubt would have done so had they been returned with a working majority and were it not that another appeal to the country has become inevitable. The housing fiasco is explained, I think, partly by the Minister's doctrinaire insistence that houses should be built only by the local authorities, with all the complications and red tape that this involves, and partly by the terrific rise in man-hours needed to build a house, as revealed by the Minister's own working party in their recent report. To pretend that the proposed cut was made in order to reduce capital expenditure is not convincing, as the whole of the housing programme accounts for less than one-fifth of the planned capital investment.
Though we all approve investment calculated to increase output, I wonder whether proper consideration has been given to all the factors involved. Everywhere one hears of new machinery capable of saving labour being installed which the workers refuse to use lest it lead to redundancy. Only the other day, I was told about a machine in the dockyards which enabled one man to do the work of eight. In fact, one man was working it, and seven were sitting there looking on. Your Lordships will have seen the reports of the difficulty a tobacco firm had recently merely to get a new labour-saving machine tried in their factory. Capital expenditure on new labour-saving machinery which does not save labour is really not profitable.
The same sort of argument applies to the factory buildings which are being put up in what used to be called distressed areas. To diversify industry in these regions so that when there is a slump in heavy industry employment can be provided by other industries in the district is excellent in theory; but have the Government assured themselves that it will work in practice? Will the trade unions allow men to transfer from heavy to light industries in this way? Will the men agree to be transferred? I hope the Government have examined these questions before investing such a large part of the national effort in these buildings. Experience at Moston Colliery, where the Coal Board planned to transfer a few hundred workers from one pit to neighbouring pits, is not reassuring. It is always easy to make out an excellent case for expenditure, but unless a strict check is kept upon the enthusiasts—like the threat of bankruptcy in private enterprise—their enthusiasm is apt to get out of hand. And excessive capital expenditure is a potent cause of the inflation we all are struggling to avoid.
The staggering rate of taxation is one of the worst features of the Budget. Even more depressing, however, is the fact that this year, for the first time, I think, the Socialists have come into the open and admitted that they do not ever expect to reduce it. People are not allowed to do what they like with their earnings. Eight shillings in every pound is taken away from them and spent by the Government. "The gentleman in Whitehall knows
396
best," as Mr. Jay said. I really wonder that people put up with it. I doubt whether they would do so if they knew what was happening. Since the war, the Government have taken nearly £20,000,000,000 from the taxpayer and spent it—that is, £1,800 from each family in the land. I wonder whether they think that they have had value for money? Government supporters have been taught to find their emotional satisfaction not so much in what they get as in what they can stop other people having. Under the hypocritical slogan "fair shares," they march into battle not knowing exactly what they seek, but happy in the thought that they can punish and destroy people who have been more successful than themselves in building up the country's industry and trade. They resent anybody being rewarded for contributing to the material welfare of the country. Curiously enough, this resentment does not extend to crooners, boxers, entertainers or anyone of that sort. A man who has built up a great business, giving employment to tens of thousands of men, is pilloried as a profiteer if he gets £20,000 or £30,000 out of it in a year. But a film star or entertainer, who may make six times as much, is feted as a hero.
This mentality seems even to have spread to the Treasury. It is very hard to get permission to change a few pounds into dollars in order to buy American scientific instruments, or worse still to visit an American university. But boxers or entertainers from across the Atlantic are paid hundreds or thousands of pounds a week, and presumably they are allowed to take a good part of it back in dollars. Only the other day I saw that a lady had landed here who specialised in "Leering Lyrics." I should not have expected this to appeal to Sir Stafford Cripps, even though her manager boasted that she had "the trimmest midriff on Broadway." But I suppose it is no use looking for logic in the Socialist philosophy. A particularly vicious, and for that matter foolish, aspect of our enormous taxation is that it seems deliberately designed to prevent great industries from being created. Private individuals are prevented from accumulating any capital by prohibitive taxation of income, enormous death duties, one-time levies and the like. Anyone wishing to develop a new idea knows that if he makes a profit it

397
will be taken away, and if he makes a loss he will be left to bear it. Great concerns like the Nuffield and Austin works could never have been built up under our present system, when even capital ploughed back into the business is heavily taxed. Yet it is on these businesses and their like that we rely for the greater part of our exports.
The Government, of course, take the view that expenditure is a fixed datum and that taxation must be adjusted to meet it, no matter how harmful in the long run. It is a line of argument that has landed many people in the bankruptcy court. When challenged, the members of the Government have evolved a standard but rather elementary gambit which they have all been trained to employ. They say, "If we are to reduce expenditure, tell us what to cut." Such would-be slick methods are, of course, merely intended to fool the electorate. Ministers are clearly not genuinely seeking ideas; they are merely trying to lead us on to say something they can exploit against us at an Election. Shareholders who see that their board of directors are making a mess of things and losing money are quite entitled to tell them to cut down expenditure. If the board replies, "It is for you to ten us where," the shareholders at the next annual meeting would throw them out, for clearly nobody could reply to such a question who had not,been given full insight into the books, allowed to see the wages sheets and the costing accounts and all the details of the business, Yet it is with this absurd gambit that the Government always try to confront the Opposition. Sometimes, even without seeing the books and knowing all the details, it is still possible for the shareholders to discover, from the small day-to-day transactions they can observe, that a business is being run in a wildly extravagant manner. That is our position. All the minor details of administration display an outlook in which economy evidently has no place, and we do not believe that people who are penny foolish are therefore pound wise.
A few days ago we were told in a letter to The Times that three grown-up women were sent down to inspect an infants' school containing fifteen children—one from the Home Office, one from the Ministry Health and one from the Ministry of Education. After a full day's
398
inspection, it seems they recommended that the children should not be told to put away their toys in evening, that they should be allowed to have meals whenever they liked and that they should not be taught to say "Please" and "Thank you." Well, that may be the way to make good Socialists—I do not know. But I do know that it is a way to waste the taxpayers' money. I will refer to another small instance. Not long ago a woman was sued for helping out her neighbours by giving or lending them a pound of tea, and her husband was accused of aiding and abetting (her in this terrible offence. The magistrate, I am glad to say, dismissed the case. But the fact that officials were encouraged or allowed to waste their time and the country's time about such a trumpery matter shows how little regard is paid to economy in Government offices to-day. If this is the sort of mentality that pervades the Civil Service, it explains why there are nearly 2,250,000 people in Government and local government employ, and it certainly justifies us on our side of the House in believing that great economies could be made, if this extravagant outlook could be altered.
The great change that has come over the picture since last year has, of course, been the devaluation of the pound from 4 dollars to 2.80 dollars. Up to the end of July last year we were assured by Government spokesmen that devaluation would be disastrous. After September 23, it was represented as a great stroke of policy. We are now in a position to examine a little more closely whether it has helped us or At first sight, any normal person would judge that an act which compelled us to pay 43 per cent. more pounds for our dollar imports whilst giving us 30 per cert. fewer dollars for goods we export to dollar markets must be most deleterious to a country which is in deficit with the dollar area. And in most respects the normal person would not be far wrong. The Chancellor boasted that in the first quarter of this year we had earned more dollars than in the quarter before devaluation, but that is a misleading comparison, Apart from seasonal variations, the dollar earnings in the quarter before devaluation were low because people held off buying, expecting devaluation. The proper comparison is between the first quarter of this year and the first quarter of 1949, and

399
that comparison is anything but reassuring. In the first quarter of 1950 it seems that we exported £45,600,000 worth of goods to the United States and Canada as against £36,000,000 worth in the first quarter of 1949. This looks splendid. The tragedy is that we received only 128,400,000 dollars for these goods in 1950 as against 143,700,000 dollars in 1949.
It is difficult to estimate the effect of devaluation on the sums we received for raw materials whose prices in dollars changed in the interval. As might be expected, Scottish exporters seem to have managed to maintain the old dollar prices for whisky, which accounts for nearly one-tenth of our dollar earnings. But we seem to have sold our manufactured goods, the great bulk of our exports to the dollar area (probably over three-quarters) at the old sterling prices; so that since devaluation we have had to export over 40 per cent. more labour and worked-up raw material than before for every dollar we received. In other words, as far as manufactured exports to the dollar area are concerned, in order to earn a given number of dollars we have to-day to do ten hours' work as against seven hours' work before devaluation.
Even more disastrous, because more widespread, has been the general worsening of the terms of trade by 10 per cent. since devaluation, which the Chancellor himself announced. This applies not only to our dollar imports but to all our transactions. Here we can see what happened and what awaits us. In the first quarter of 1950, we exported over 10 per cent. more by volume than in 1949. But the terms of trade have gone against us to the extent of 10 per cent. All our efforts, the devoted work of management and men, which resulted in our increasing our exports by one tenth, have not given us any increased imports. For our exports in 1949 we received £1,790,000,000. In order to get merely as much next year as last year (and the Chancellor is banking upon getting £120,000,000 more) we shall have to export £180,000,000 worth more goods—the output of some 200,000 men. Nor could the Chancellor even promise that this was the end. Could anything be more deplorable? Is this the last word in Socialist planning?
How is it, then, that the Chancellor was able to tell us that in the first quarter of this year the dollar gap had been closed. The Government, I hope, will give us a quantitative explanation of this pleasing phenomenon, but in the meanwhile I will hazard my own provisional interpretation. The noble Lord will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—and very likely if I am right. In the first place, I imagine that the import cuts from the dollar area which were imposed last autumn are beginning to take effect. That naturally is an easy way, though not a very comfortable one, to save dollars. Apparently, the cuts since 1948 amount to 900,000,000 dollars a year, almost equal to our 1949 deficit of 1,084,000,000 dollars, nearly twice the value of our earnings. Probably it was far the most important step on our road to achieving a balance. But it could have been taken without devaluation.
In the second place, I suppose the Americans, as arranged in the Conferences in Washington, had resumed buying raw materials from the sterling area; and the increased demand has pushed up the price. How much of this demand was for stock piling and how much of it will continue year in and year out the Government ought to be able to estimate. And I think the country ought to be told; otherwise we may again find ourselves landed in trouble, with the excuse that it is all due to a recession in American demand. From the published figures, we are able to follow the rise and fall and balance of United Kingdom imports and exports to the dollar area. We can only infer the corresponding figures for the sterling area as a whole. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to give us figures for the last few years showing the imports and exports of the various parts of the sterling area, and if possible of the O.E.E.C. countries, to the dollar area, and to tell us how they compare with pre-war times. It will be impossible to discuss all the extremely important and promising proposals for European union, as the House will no doubt wish to do in the course of the summer, unless we know the details of the balance of payments of the various sterling area countries with the E.P.U. nations.
The third effect of devaluation, and in my view the only useful one, is the reduction which it seems to have caused in

401
the demand from the rest of the sterling area for dollar goods. Notoriously, the United Kingdom has always had an unfavourable dollar balance. Before the war this was made good by the gold and dollars we received in return for our exports to sterling countries outside the United Kingdom. Since the war, these sterling area countries, far from having a gold and dollar surplus have had a deficit. Instead of being a help to the United Kingdom in its dollar transactions they have become a burden. At first sight this would seem difficult to explain, but the reason, according to my information, is not far to seek. I am told, though it seems hard to credit, that ally country in the sterling area, which has been authorised to draw upon sterling, could use such drawings without restriction for dollar purchases. If so, this would explain the enormously increased purchases by the sterling area from America. For, as I shall show presently, we have released hundreds of millions of sterling balances which ought to have been blocked until long-term arrangements had been agreed. This is one degree worse than unrequited exports. It means giving countries, many of which we saved from the enemy, a free hand to run us into dollar expenditure for which the United Kingdom receives nothing in return.
In so much as it caused countries in the sterling area to reduce their demand for dollar goods devaluation has had a good effect. If the Government insisted on releasing these vast sums in sterling from the blocked balances without setting any limit to their use for dollar purchases, the rise in the price of dollar goods caused by devaluation has at any rate discouraged expenditure in the dollar area. In no other respect, so far as I can see, has it helped our dollar balance. But to achieve this advantage we in the United Kingdom have had to pay a heavy price. For we have to work much harder to pay for our own direct imports, not only from America but from the rest of the world. We have to do ten hours' work instead of nine to get the same amount of goods. This is a grievous burden to endure merely in order to induce countries with dubious claims from the war period to take unrequited exports from us instead of buying dollar goods and leaving us to foot the bill.
Some Government spokesmen, of course, say that whether devaluation was
402
good or bad is beside the point; it was inevitable; it was simply the recognition of existing facts. But is no one responsible for these facts? Did they just happen? This is a queer conception of democratic planning. What were these so-called facts? Quite simply, that people the world over were not prepared to give four dollars for £1. One reason—probably the main one—is very simple. People did not need pounds sterling to pay for our British goods. One reason for that was that we were giving away our manufactures in the form of "unrequited exports." This was one of the main facts in question. It was not a sort of act of God; it was the result of the orders of the Socialist Government. That this was one of the main causes of the weakness of sterling is clear. In 1949, we are told, our overall trade was in balance. With the dollar area, of course, we were in deficit. Therefore we must have had a surplus with the sterling area. Hence, by all rules of economics, sterling should have been a hard currency in strong demand in the sterling area. As I have said, this was not so, simply because the world had been flooded with sterling, in large part by the direct action of the Socialist Government.
I will not weary the House by explaining once again why we should have blocked these balances at the end of the war. I have stated often enough that they rose to these vast heights in the main because work done in countries we were defending, which these countries should have shouldered themselves, was charged against us; because the contracts were often placed by the local authorities at extravagant prices; aid because the costs were converted into sterling at pre-war rates of exchange, although the currencies in question were usually grossly inflated. Instead of blocking them, scaling them down, and setting off our counterclaims, the Government seem to have accepted at their face value all the sterling claims without further examination. And instead of funding what remained on reasonable terms, the Government evidently released enormous sums out of hand and, apparently, paid interest on the rest at something like 2 to 2½ per cent. This improvident behaviour is in large part the cause of our difficulties. Moreover it continues. More and more of these "phoney" balances are unblocked. In 1948, apparently, £1,600,000,000 were

403
blocked and £1,750,000,000 were free. Last year, another £250,000,000 were unblocked, so that we may be called upon to pay £2,000,000,000 at a moment's notice. How can we expect to return to stability with such an incubus overhanging our economy?
In the two and a half years from June, 1947, to January, 1950, as Mr. Harrod has shown, over £460,000,000 was pumped out by these releases of these sterling balances and the interest paid on them. This can have been done only by the authority of the Chancellor. The responsibility, therefore, lies squarely on the Government. And I do not suppose that they will seek to evade it, for they boast that since the war they have given or lent £1,500,000,000 from United Kingdom resources. The extraordinary thing is that these vital, or perhaps I should say fatal, decisions could have been put into effect without Parliament being allowed any opportunity to discuss them. When one remembers the weeks and months of debate in Congress which precede the granting of their generous gifts and loans, it is quite amazing that actions of such magnitude and importance can be taken in this country—for compared with the national incomes of the two countries, the figures in question are comparable—without Parliament or the public being allowed to know what is happening.
These sterling balances which overhang the whole of our economy are so important that I must press the noble Lord to give the House a list of the major items, say those over £10,000,000, stating how much was blocked, how much has been released or promised for release, how much they have been drawn down and how much interest, if any, has been or is being paid. Quite apart from these sterling releases, hundreds of millions of pounds seem to have been transferred from the United Kingdom to the rest of the sterling area. This happened not because the Government decided to do it, but simply because people do not like to invest their savings in enterprises which are liable to be hampered by Socialist interference or even seized and nationalised by a predatory Government. Exchange restrictions prevented a flight from the pound, but nothing could stop the flight of sterling from the United
404
Kingdom to other parts of the sterling area. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House told us last week that we must expect Socialist Ministers to be Socialists. Of course we do. By the same token we expect mad dogs to be mad. What we deplore is that they seem to be incurable. Similarly, we must expect capitalists to distrust Marxists. Whether or not they should do so is beside the point. They do and always will.
As Mr. Harrod has shown, something like £470,000,000 seems to have been moved out of the United Kingdom in this way in the last two and a half years. Together with the sterling releases, therefore, over £900,000,000 has been pumped out into the world within thirty months without any solid return. No wonder the sterling area could afford to take our exports and thus produce the surplus of which Ministers boast, without of course emphasising that we supplied the pounds to provide it! No wonder that, despite this export surplus, sterling became a soft currency for which there was no demand! This is the principal reason why sterling had to be devalued, despite the obvious disadvantages of this course of action. It was not a proud result of planning. It was just the result of lack of foresight.
For the time being there is no denying that our economic future lies almost entirely in the hands of America, and unless we can not only bridge the dollar gap by 1952 but earn a surplus to service our dollar debts this dependence will persist. America seems to have four choices. She can cut down exports, to the detriment of her exporting industries. She can continue to export and accept imports in payment—a course which will meet with resistance from her industries manufacturing for the home market. She can continue to send exports abroad as gifts, as she is doing now, a course which spreads the burden over the whole community, which pays in the form of taxes. Or, lastly, she can continue to export and postpone her claim on debtor countries by investing her credits there. This is what we did in the nineteenth century and in many ways it would be the healthiest way of dealing with the dollar gap. The trouble, of course, as I have said, is that capitalists very naturally hesitate to entrust their money to a country dominated by Socialist economics. And this is one of the main reasons why I think the

405
position would be eased by a change of Government.
Economically, the country is to-day in a more vulnerable state than it has been in all its history. Before the war our gold reserves were sufficient to pay for more than nine months' imports. The loss of £100,000,000 or £200,000,000 was nothing to worry about. To-day our gold and dollar reserves would barely pay for three months' imports. The smallest efflux brings us to the edge of risk. The reason we have got into this position was clearly stated by Mr. Attlee. "We have tried," he said "to do too much." That is the real origin of our troubles; it is this fatal Socialist habit of embarking on projects without making sure that we have the resources to undertake them. In many cases it is because their emotions dominate their intellects; their hearts rule their heads. In private life this is an amiable thing, but in public administration it is most dangerous. "The worst of madmen is a saint run mad.
As the Survey very honestly points out. everything depends upon a number of contingencies. The first is that production should rise by 2½ per cent. We must hope that, despite restrictive practices and the lack of incentives, this may occur. The second is that savings may increase by 25 per cent. This can happen only if the trend towards a fall in profits is reversed, and if restraint is practised on private spending—Government spending, of course, no one dares to touch. The third is that our prices should not rise and that goods should remain competitive with German and Japanese production. This requires that wages should not rise faster than output. The fourth is that there should be no deterioration in the terms of trade. They have fallen more than 10 per cent. in the last year. We must hope they are now stabilised. The fifth is that America should continue prosperous. This is most important, for any slackening in American demand for raw materials means a general fall in prices, as well as in sales.
If all these requirements are fulfilled, the Chancellor of the Exchequer reckons that we shall be able to increase our exports by the 18 per cent. needed to give us a surplus of £50,000,000, despite the worse terms of trade. The reward we are offered, if all these provisos are happily fulfilled,
406
is not very enticing. Everything is earmarked for one purpose or another. The Chancellor said explicitly,
"There will be no margin whatever for increases in personal consumption."
So that is what we have come to. If all our hopes come off we may just about be able to hold our own. I suppose it is what we might have expected. Every year for the last four years we seem to have been told at some season or another that we are just rounding the corner. Well, of course, after you have rounded four corners you are pretty well back where you started from—at any rate if you Keep Left!
I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, can feel proud of this result of five years of Socialist planning when he compares our state with that of other countries. Our economic strength and stability used to be the envy of the world. Now we have been reduced to such a pass that unless all these independent contingencies come to pass we shall experience a grave fall in our standard of life. Never has our situation been so vulnerable. Never before have we depended so much upon events over which we have so little control. Even though many of us consider that the Government have contributed largely to the difficulties which face them, we wish them well in the anxious task ahead, and all of us, I am sure, will bend every effort to retrieve the position and to try to regain for our country the economic independence and security which we used to enjoy in the past. I beg to move for Papers.
3.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, the House will have recognised many qualities in the comprehensive address to which we have just listened—the original wit, the industry, the untiring tenacity and that combination of personal urbanity with political fanaticism which makes the noble Lord so lovable a figure in the life of your Lordships' House. I recognised towards the end in the last sentence something that I can almost agree with, but that was a drop in the ocean. One thing that none of us on this side recognised, and I should fancy very few not directly associated with the noble Lord will have recognised, was any picture of Britain to-day or of Britain over the last twelve months.

407
The noble Lord has asked whether I am proud of the Government of which I am a humble member. The answer to that is emphatically, "Yes." I am proud of the achievements of this Government and I am proud of what the British people have achieved under the present Government. While the noble Lord kept most of his purposes up his sleeve, as he is fully entitled to do, he did give me advance notice of two points. The noble Lord differs in that respect from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, whom we are glad to see back with us to-day. The noble Lord sent me a list of questions about sterling balances. The answers are rather detailed and unless he insists on having them now I should prefer to write him a letter on the subject, because the answer to some of his questions is "Yes" and to some of them "No."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is a very important subject, upon which as yet we have had no detailed information from the Government. If it is to be dealt with in an epistolary manner, may it be done by Written Question and Answer, which will appear for all of us to read?
LORD PAKENHAM: I have no objection at all to the course suggested by the noble Viscount. I am afraid I have much to say and it would take some time to give the answers in detail now. I would say at once that while we shall be able to give the noble Lord some information all of which may have been disclosed already at different times, we shall not be able to give him the individual amounts of sterling balances held by different countries, for reasons stated in public on more than one occasion. I would say this about sterling balances. As the whole House knows, discussions are still going on in Washington, and in the circumstances I do not know that anybody, least of all those who have just returned from the United States, will wish or expect me to gay anything definite. But we entirely repudiate the attitude of the noble Lord in this matter. We repudiate the suggestion that these sums were paid out without any proper attention or care—that they were, as it were, just thrown to anybody who happened to want them. There has been nothing of that kind. I would place this thought before the noble Lord and other members of the House
408
who are so concerned, as we all are, about the Empire and about resistance in Asia to Communism, which is a very present threat in these days. The payment of these sums has played a vital part in restoring life in many parts of the world, and particularly in Asia, and it is difficult to measure the disasters that would have occurred if some such sums had not been paid out during that period.
LORD CHERWELL: I am suggesting merely that Parliament might have had an opportunity of discussing and considering those payments.
LORD PAKENHAM: We have been having debates on these topics for five years now.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may say so, the noble Lord has said that he could not give any of the detailed figures. We feel that Parliament and the British people ought to know those figures.
LORD PAKENHAM: I appreciate the point put by the noble Marquess, but, if I may say so with respect, it false to suggest that it has been impossible for Parliament to discuss the issue. I can say now that the largest individual holders are India, Australia, Egypt, various Commonwealth territories and the Irish Republic. These facts have been fairly well known for a long time, and it has been perfectly possible to discuss them on a number of occasions when questions have been put in this House and elsewhere.
The noble Lord was good enough to give me notice of another question he wished to raise. He said that he would ask this afternoon for figures of trade between different parts of the sterling area and O.E.E.C. countries, on the one hand, and the dollar area on the other. I believe that this afternoon the noble Lord further asked for a comparison with pre-war figures, but I cannot remember off-hand whether he gave me notice of that question. What I have to say does not apply to such a comparison with pre-war figures, which may not be possible. The noble Lord will appreciate that the figures for which he asks refer in the vast majority of cases to trade between independent Governments, and that His Majesty's Government are not directly responsible either for the preparation of

409
the figures or for their authenticity. In fact, there is nothing I shall be able to tell the noble Lord that cannot be secured from a study of the Canadian and United States figures already published, or from the Report on Overseas Trade published monthly by the Board of Trade. However, as the noble Lord is of such eminence, and as he has been good enough to give me notice, I will make sure that certain extracts which have been prepared from those documents are communicated to him. As distinct from what I was saying about the sterling balances, the Government cannot take responsibility for those figures. Therefore I must communicate them to the noble Lord, or to any other noble Lord who wishes to have them, without accepting responsibility.
LORD BARNBY: Since all these figures from these countries have recently been published in the financial Press, is it to be understood from the noble Lord's refusal to indicate that they will be published officially that the financial Press have published them inaccurately?
LORD PAKENHAM: Not at all; but we cannot take responsibility for the figures published by other Governments or for the deductions drawn from them. I do not feel that any difficulty will arise over this matter. If the noble Lord, when he has seen these figures, feels that I am being unduly careful, I am perfectly ready to talk over the matter with him. But I should not think that this question, whatever may he the position in regard to others, will be one on which we shall find ourselves in disagreement.
LORD BARNBY: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord again, but in view of the importance of the matter to overseas countries with whom these balances are in question, is it not advisable that a démenti should be published?
LORD PAKENHAM: I am afraid that I have not made myself plain. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, is asking me to collect these figures that have already been published by various countries and pass them on to him in a convenient form. I am quite ready to do that, but clearly His Majesty's Government, as noble Lords will appreciate, cannot take responsibility for those figures. I shall be delighted to discuss the issue with the
410
noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, or the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and I do not think there will be any difference whatever, between us on this point.
Before dealing with the figures for last year (and I want to deal particularly this afternoon with last year, because we have dealt with the last five years so often in this House) I wish to submit to the House six propositions which, to the best of my belief, summarise what has occurred in this country since the war. I feel that the first four must, on reflection, be regarded as incontrovertible statements of fact; but the last two are undoubtedly more controversial, and noble Lords are entitled to their own opinions regarding them. First of all, Britain has been afflicted by severe economic handicaps compared with pre-war, through no fault of our own. Secondly, the dollar gap—again arising through not fault of our own—has been the harshest of our problems. We must continue to strain every nerve to close it by 1952, when Marshall Aid comes to an end. Thirdly, in the face of immense difficulties, our people have done much better than before the war. We have maintained full employment and a very high degree of industrial peace; we are producing much more than ever before; the standard of life of the great mass of the people has been considerably improved—the most extreme forms of poverty have been virtually abolished—and,at the same time (I will return to this in more detail later on), we have added substantially to the real capital wealth of this country in catching up with the destruction and dilapidation caused by the war. Fourthly—and I am still dealing with what should be beyond argument—the policy of the Government has been distinguished throughout this period through certain novel principles, some of them non-controversial.
But the two fundamental principles, whether or not noble Lords opposite agree with them, have been those of planned economy and fair shares for all—that is to say, a much more equal distribution of wealth. The noble Lord chuckles—I could almost use a less attractive term. We do not chuckle over the idea of promoting social justice in this country. We do not chuckle over the fact that before the war one man in every seventy owned as much wealth as the other sixty-nine put together—and I am using very conservative figures in that

411
comparison. We do not chuckle over the fact that we are doing a great deal to mitigate that gross inequality.
LORD CHERWELL: For elucidation, would the noble Lord tell me what is the difference between social justice and ordinary plain justice?
LORD PAKENHAM: Yes. I should say it was the difference between social credit and credit
LORD CHERWELL: Exactly—that is a very good comparison.
LORD PAKENHAM: The point about social justice is that it means a juster distribution of the national wealth.
LORD CHERWELL: At the expense of ordinary justice.
LORD PAKENHAM: I cannot conceive why the noble Lord should say that. I am afraid I have a long speech to make, and I hope the noble Lord will not keep up his intermittent commentary. "Social justice" is a term which I should have thought was well understood in all Parties. I should have thought there was a difference between Parties about how you secure social justice, but to begin quibbling at this time of day as to whether there is such a thing as social justice seems to me to be fantastic. If I may return to the comparison, the noble Lord has made a number of rather odd statements about our mentality—what was it, an intelligence quotient of a child of five years?
LORD CHERWELL: I would give the noble Lord himself many more.
LORD PAKENHAM: Perhaps we may pass from the personal plane and continue the argument. I now come to what is undoubtedly more controversial. The Opposition policy has been clouded in obscurity—no one can deny that. They felt it was wrong to be asked to disclose their policy, because we might use it against them (the noble Lord said it again to-day) at the General Election. But they have consistently attacked both the last two principles which I have mentioned. So far as we can judge, if a Tory Government had been in power England would have been quite a different place, I am glad that the noble Lord has given up that chuckling, because it was beginning to get
412
a little on my nerves. There would have been no planned economy by now and wealth would have been far less equally distributed. That, I am sure, is a statement of fact. We ourselves are convinced that the planned economy and the principle of fair shares have been indispensable conditions—denied before the war—of full employment and of all the great achievements of the British people during these strenuous years. Going back again to this allegation of childhood and the intelligence quotient of five. I would point out that the noble Lord has argued that it was child's play to provide full employment and that it would have provided itself in some peculiar fashion. I can only remind the noble Lord that it did not provide itself after the previous war, when there was a great shortage of things in the world, and I cannot see why it has been automatically provided this time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord knows perfectly well that there are only three countries in which employment has not persisted after this war. I think they are Germany, Italy and Belgium. In all other countries the level of employment has been exactly the same. It is not the slightest good making comparisons with the last war, which was completely different.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am afraid that I cannot accept the noble Marquess' intervention at all. He may not think comparison with the last war is the slightest good, but it is to me.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord would not dispute what I said about the other countries after this war?
LORD PAKENHAM: I would agree with the noble Marquess that three important European countries have shown high degrees of unemployment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But a far larger number of countries have shown the same degree of employment as we have. The noble Lord cannot escape from that—it does not do him credit.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord seems to impute some personal motive to me when he says that it does not do me credit. I can only inform him that the full employment in this country has been striking. There was no such full employment after the last war, and I was under

413
the impression that noble Lords opposite adopted a different argument from that which the noble Marquess has now submitted. The noble Marquess has not caught up with the latest developments. The argument was that there had been a great economic revolution which affected all Parties, and was so expressed in what was called the White Paper of 1944. That, in fact, is the argument, but the noble Marquess does not seem to be aware of it. I am simply recording the fact that in our own view we have secured full employment as it would not otherwise have been secured. We are surely entitled, after one and a quarter hours of the noble Lord's—if I may call them "leering lyrics" or whatever phrase he would prefer, to state our point of view with equal force and clarity. We believe that the continuance of these principles is indispensable if we are to surpass, as we must, our recent achievements.
Now let me come to the last year. The noble Lord did not give any idea that in many ways this was a remarkably good year. I do not think that anybody coming to our councils from outside—some intelligent person who had been ill for a long time, and wanted to know how England was getting on—would have grasped that from the address to which we have listened. However much we may differ in our views, there are three facts which surely stand out clearly. I have tried to clear the ground as it were and approach the last year without becoming too much encumbered with the details of the previous period. These facts stand out clearly and they summarise the progress we have made in the economic field during the last twelve months. First, as regards production, we have had a line year. I do not know whether anybody would have grasped that from the speech of the noble Lord. Secondly, we have held back the pressure of inflation at home; and, thirdly, together with the rest of the sterling area, we have made substantial progress, in spite of serious intervening setbacks, in improving the dollar balance of payment and strengthening the general position of sterling.
May I take first the heading of production? In order not to detain the House at enormous length, in view of the fact that there are three gifted speakers to follow me, I will concentrate on three
414
central contentions. Production during this last year surpassed all our expectations. There was no allusion to that from the noble Lord. We estimate (the noble Lord knows this quite well, and I do not think he challenges the figure) that the total output in real terms increased by rather more than 5 per cent. which, when allowing for the increase in employment over the same field, gives an increased output per man year of nearly 4 per cent.—increased productivity as one might call it, and this is the interesting figure—compared with the increase of 2½ per cent. for which it was thought prudent to budget when the Economic Survey for 1949 was prepared.
LORD BARNBY: Does that make allowance for the reduction in hours?
LORD PAKENHAM: If I may put it bluntly to the noble Lord—because I think the House wants to get on—hours do not come into the subject at all. Taking the population of this country there was an increase per head of nearly 4 per cent., whereas we had expected an increase of only 2½ per cent. In the narrower field of the industries covered by the index of industrial production, the increases seem to have been over 6½ per cent. in production and about 5½ per cent. in productivity per head.
We had not dared to hope that the unexpected rate of increase achieved in 1949 would be fully maintained this year, and it is all the more gratifying to observe that so far the indices suggest that the expansion is continuing unchecked; and in fact the average output in what I call the narrowing field during the first quarter of this year was about 40 per cent. greater than in 1946, or about 9 per cent. greater than last year. I know that in our hearts, at any rate, we all want these figures to go up, and I think we are entitled to draw very great solace from these facts. This increase of 9 per cent. compares with the increase of 6½ per cent. last year which I have just mentioned, and it shows that in these industries, at any rate, progress this year has been even faster than last. Moreover—and I think this is a significant point—this further increase would appear to represent not just a few large advances by certain industries, as was to some extent the case previously, but steady progress over a wide area and over our

415
whole industrial field. As the noble Lord himself implied, these increases will deservedly elicit from all of us the warmest congratulations to all those concerned, whether employers or employed. That is undoubtedly one moral. Here is another: Such rates of increase give little support for those who would argue that high taxation and so-called Government interference are drying up the springs of enterprise and killing the will to work. Whatever the House may think of that second moral, this third moral will surely be accepted. None of these achievements points the way to a relaxation of effort, but rather to a redoubling of exertion, whether in productive industry proper or in ways in which we feel we can be of assistance to those who are so engaged.
Now may I turn to my second contention, that in the past year we have held back inflation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not likely, I think, to be accused of being blind to the inflationary danger. He said quite clearly in his Budget speech that
"the greatest internal danger to the success of our external policies has been and still is inflation."
The House will therefore pay all the more attention to his statement in the same speech, that
"our internal situation is, on the whole, less inflationary than at any time since the war."
There will be many who prefer that statement to that of the noble Lord who, with equal sincerity of course, said that our position is more vulnerable than it has ever been.
Your Lordships recently discussed the cost-of-living index in detail. I replied to that debate, and I do not propose to go over the same ground again. I would just point out what the noble Lord appeared to overlook in his comparison between the rise of prices during the war and since the war, that in fact since the war there has been a very much greater rise in import prices, which, of course, affects our index. In short, there has been a rise in prices everywhere. Our rise is part of a general movement. I will not go further into that now, except to point out that since devaluation there has been a rise of only two points—that is, from 112 to 114, and that some very misguided hilarity which was displayed at the time
416
in certain quarters has been completely falsified by the course of events. The commendable restraint shown by all sections of the community—I stress, all sections of the community: I am not making any Party point—in personal incomes has been a foremost factor in the very small increase in retail prices that has occurred since last September. Speaking for the Government, but on a matter which is in no possible sense a Party issue, I call for the continuance now of an attitude that has served us so well, and indeed without which we might well have been overtaken by extreme disaster.
To-day, however, I should like to turn to another aspect of this particular matter about which there has obviously been profound misapprehension in certain illustrious quarters. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition on November 3 in this House said:
"It is always possible to live in comfort or even in luxury for a limited period by trenching largely on one's capital."
I think that is the meaning of the noble Marquess's argument, but I will read further if he desires me to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Brand, in the same debate, making some different point but linking it with the other, said:
"I do not believe the public privately are saving anything at the moment."
Again, if the noble Lord wishes I will read more. The implication of these two statements was, clearly, that as a country we were living on capital and were failing to save and invest enough for our economic well-being in the future. On the contrary, we are investing more, both absolutely and in proportion to our national income, than in pre-war years. I should have hoped that these facts were more widely known. Last year the proportion was 22 per cent. of our national income to investment against 15 per cent. before the war. Comparable figures for net investment are, I think difficult to come by; but the London and Cambridge Economic Survey, in their Bulletin published to-day, estimate the net investment for the years 1946 to 1950 to be £4,920,000,000, with a pretty steady level of investment throughout the period.
It may be said "What of Marshall Aid?" I am sure the House will not suppose that I am underestimating the vital service of Marshall Aid to our economy if I point out that Marshall Aid

417
in 1949 was about 2½ per cent. of the national production of the United Kingdom. Even this figure, however, in view of the aid we ourselves have given to other countries, exaggerates the total extent of our dependence during that year 1949. When estimating the extent to which our domestic resources have been supplemented from outside, the appropriate figure to take for 1949, as for any other year, is that for the balance of payments deficit on current account—that is, on visible and invisible items. In 1949 this was £70,000,000, the equivalent of about one-half of one per cent. of the gross national product; whereas the London and Cambridge Economic Survey estimates that during the year in question our net investment at home was £1,000,000,000 at the prices of 1945–46, or somewhere near one-tenth of the national income. That would be something like twenty times the balance deficit upon current account. Taking into account, therefore, the sums borrowed or received from abroad, and also the aid we ourselves have given to other countries, the figures I have read show that the postwar period has been one of substantial increase in the real wealth of the country and not, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury says, one in which this country has been living a gay life by "blowing" its capital.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, who has been extremely courteous in letting me know that he was going to read this quotation from my speech. I rise now because I am not going to intervene in the debate. I must say that the impression which the noble Lord has given to this House is that our situation is far more favourable than it was in pre-war years, that we are investing more, and that our position is stronger and generally more satisfactory. If he had gone on to the next paragraph of my speech he would have shown that I quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer who used these words
"… unless we can quickly produce more and get our costs down we shall suffer a tragic fall in our standard of living, accompanied by all the demoralising insecurity of widespread unemployment."
That does not quite fit in with what the noble Lord has just said.
LORD PAKENHAM: I was reciting facts which no one will be able challenge,
418
in this debate or at any other time. But the noble Marquess made his statement about living on capital and the facts are as I have mentioned. I hope the noble Marquess will allow me to use a phrase which he himself has handled with great effect in the past: to suggest that we are really living on our capital, as the noble Marquess has done, can be described only as "economic ballyhoo."
Now I come to savings and the source of savings, an aspect of which has particularly troubled the noble Lord, Lord Brand. Let us first take the total figures, made up of savings by the Government, by public authorities and by firms and private individuals. This sum is clearly larger than before the war, and the proportion of our national income saved in 1949 showed an increase of about 50 per cent. on 1938, when less than 14 per cent. of our national income was saved. Some of your Lordships may argue that to-day it is the Government who do the lion's share of the saving. We might go into that some time if necessary. But private saving—that is, saving by firms and individuals—represents 16 per cent. of our national income, compared with about 14 per cent. in 1938. Finally, if we take gross personal savings, to which Lord Brand may have been referring—that is, saving by individuals as distinct from firms—we find that exactly the same percentage of the personal disposable income was saved last year as in 1938—namely, 4.8 per cent. The figures I have given give little support to those who say that high taxation has dried up the wells of saving.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Is that net or gross?
LORD PAKENHAM: That is gross. Critics may fall back on the argument that what is really lacking is something called "risk capital." I find in various quarters a good many different definitions of that phrase, in which I will not attempt this afternoon to involve either myself or the House. The view that risk capital has virtually disappeared is strangely at variance with the present voracious and, in its way, very laudable demand by private industry to increase its investment in real capital. The great problem has been not to induce firms to carry out capital work but to find some means to restrain such work going forward at a rate beyond that which we as

419
a nation can afford. So I really cannot accept that there is all this shortage of resources in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Brand, has in mind. I know that in these matters nobody can establish an absolute chain of cause and effect. No one desires high taxes, except to meet necessary expenditure. No one likes high taxes as such. But we on this side are entitled to point out, and to point out more than once, owing to the widespread misconception, that not only employment and production but investment and the demand from industry to embark on still more investment are to-day at very high levels and showing no signs of decline.
I had to say all that because there seems to be so much genuine misunderstanding on the matter. I need hardly say, however, that the need for savings is as great as ever it was and, in view of the increased temptation to spend, now that more goods are becoming available, the task of the National Savings Movement becomes more urgent than ever. The tendency to confuse national savings, as the term is normally used, with personal savings, as they are defined in our Economic White Papers, is very natural. It is a mistake into which a great many people fall, not having all the assistance which some of us are allowed. The truth is, of course, that if we take the net increase or net decrease of national savings, or even the total of national savings outstanding, which includes accrued interest and has slightly increased during the last year, we are still not discussing the total figure of personal savings which is the ultimate relevant figure from the point of view of the national economy. But, of course, what happens in national savings is of great importance to the total of personal savings. We do undoubtedly require an increase of personal savings this year. At this point, therefore, I desire not only to call on everyone who can save to do so in whatever fashion his circumstances permit but, in particular, to congratulate all those responsible for the National Savings Movement on their magnificent achievements, their self-sacrficing persistence, often in the face of apparent discouragements, and to urge the overwhelming importance of all of us doing everything we can to play our part or to encourage the movement in every way.
420
I now come to the external balance of payments which I think the noble Marquess had particularly in mind. The year 1949 ended with a United Kingdom deficit on current account—that is not just imports and exports as we understand them, but counting visible and invisible items together, with the world as a whole—of only £70,000,000. That is the same in money terms as the figure for 1938, but naturally it is considerably less in terms of goods. Even so, in my opinion, too little has been said of this achievement. Here again, I do not think this is a Party matter. The interest and concern which we all concentrate on the dollar balance should not blind us to what we have achieved over-all, to our trade with the world as a whole. By stern self-restraint and increased production at home we need to import much less than pre-war, while our exports to-day are well over 50 per cent. above the pre-war figure. The noble Lord quoted some export figures for volume that appear to refer to the first quarter of the year. As I understand it, the volume figures for the first quarter have not yet been released.
LORD CHERWELL: The Board of Trade returns.
LORD PAKENHAM: Not the volume figures? The noble Lord has for once anticipated me. I was not aware that these figures had already been released. Exports have increased in value during the first quarter by 12 per cent. The rise in prices has not been as great as that, but there was a rise in volume in exports as compared with last year. Despite the loss of such a large proportion of our overseas investments during the war, despite the worsening in the terms of trade, and despite the need to remedy the destruction and dilapidation caused by the war, we have to-day, in the fifth year of peace, brought our overall accounts into equilibrium, and in 1950 we hope to show a small surplus on the year.
But it is the dollar balance of payments, not only for ourselves but for the whole sterling area, which has caused this country as the banker of the sterling area the greatest difficulty since the war. I do not intend to weary your Lordships with a detailed analysis of how this deficit arose, but I am not sure that even yet sufficient study has been given to the

421
differences—in some case it has not been possible for those without access to official sources—between to-day and the pre-war period. Broadly speaking, before the war the United Kingdom dollar deficit on visible accounts was covered partly by a surplus on invisible account, partly by the dollar surplus of the rest of the sterling area and partly by the sale of newly-mined gold, about which we have not heard very much in recent times in this House. To-day, the worsening terms of trade have increased the United Kingdom's visible dollar deficit, although alone among the O.E.C.C. countries by 1948 we had actually increased our volume of dollar exports and diminished our volume of dollar imports compared with pre-war; and in that sense the increase in our dollar deficit was certainly no fault of ours. Be that as it may, the surplus we ran on invisible account had disappeared partly owing to the war-time loss of our investments. I will not pursue that particularly statistical refinement today—perhaps we may return to it tomorrow.
The major items of change—and this is not always realised—have been the much greater volume of dollar imports now taken by the rest of the sterling area, and the fact that the gold, which is seldom referred to, now produced in the sterling area, does not yield nearly as much in terms of real purchasing power as the gold produced before the war. The deterioration in the United Kingdom visible account with the dollar area—that is in actual trading—caused, I repeat, largely by the movement of prices against us, represents only a small proportion out of the total deficit of the sterling area against which we have been struggling and shall continue to struggle. That is a fact which, in justice to ourselves, quite apart from politics, we are all entitled to remark and to digest.
It is against this background that we should examine our struggle with the dollar problem. We had already brought down the sterling area gold and dollar deficit from 4,131,000,000 dollars in 1947 to 1,710,000,000 dollars in 1948, our own United Kingdom dollar deficit being about two-thirds of the whole. Even so, a year ago our gold and dollar reserves were decreasing at the rate of over 1,000,000,000 dollars a year, in spite of Marshall Aid and our drawings on the
422
Canadian credit. At the same time, in addition to the export drive, we were doing various things, which I will pass over rather lightly but which are of great importance. We were searching the non-dollar world for food and materials which could be bought in substitution for some of the dollar goods which we had had to cut out. We were taking a leading part in rebuilding the European economy, through the detailed discussions in Paris in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, and in the so-called drawing rights which we gave to other participating countries in order to finance their sterling deficits. And we (and when I say "we", I mean the Government and private firms) were helping to build up production in other sterling area countries.
All this has borne fruit in the last year or so, when we see a great expansion of imports and exports in our trade with Europe and with the Commonwealth, and the re-establishment of prosperity in many countries that were in a bad way in 1947. But, in spite of all this, we were last year still unavoidably dependent upon the dollar area for a large section of our imports, and so, of course, were other countries which banked through London. Furthermore, the maintenance of our dollar earnings, and of those of the raw material producing countries of the sterling area, depended, and still depends, on a high level of activity and demand in the United States. We shall never get away from that fact and none of us has any desire to shirk it.
A year ago this level was dropping, definitely though not severely, and sales by sterling area countries and by those in Europe fell sharply. This led to a heavy drain on our dollar resources, particularly since our imports were seasonally rather heavy during the summer. Other countries were affected in the same way. In those circumstances the United Kingdom, as an international banking country, was naturally most affected, and the drain on our very modest reserves became so great that the Government, after full and serious consideration, decided to devalue the pound in terms of United States dollars and gold. As everyone remembers it very clearly, I need not remind the House that this took place on September 18. That is in the minds of us all. At the meeting of Commonwealth

423
Finance Ministers in July we had already taken emergency action to reduce dollar imports to a yearly rate of 1,200,000,000 dollars; other Commonwealth countries agreed to take action comparable in its effects with this.
To-morrow, Lord Lucas, who speaks in this House for the Board of Trade, will deal much more exhaustively and more authoritatively than I with the actual progress of exports. I would just point out that since devaluation our competitive power has been much greater—and not only in the dollar markets themselves, in which the exports to Canada have been particularly gratifying. There has been a steep increase in exports to Australia, to the Colonies and to some Western European countries, which has helped to neutralise the increased sterling value of our imports. As a result, there is at present a small surplus in our general balance of payments, as indeed there was at the beginning of last year, and at the end of the year. I could have hoped that the noble Lord would take more pride in this, because it seems to be one of the finest things that has happened since the war.
On the dollar side—and this is a point which I feel we can regard with considerable though very guarded satisfaction—our own imports are at present running within the agreed rate of 1,200,000,000 dollars, compared with 2,263,000,000 in 1947, when they were nearly twice as much. Other Commonwealth countries have followed suit and their earnings have, moreover, been at a high level. Our improved competitive position has meant less loss of gold and dollars to Belgium, Switzerland and Persia, and the total result has been that in the six months since devaluation the net gold and dollar deficit has disappeared for the time being, and has become a surplus. I say that with all the possible qualification and reservation which the Chancellor himself has attached to it, but it is a notable fact. I said before, and I am afraid, speaking from this place, I must attach all the proper qualifications, that the maintenance of our earnings depends on a high level of American economic activity. This is certainly the case at present, and our earnings are seasonally rather high and our imports rather low. One must maintain consider-
424
able caution in interpreting the results, but we can draw much encouragement from what has occurred. Nevertheless, we face a long period of consolidation and, we hope, progress in the remarkable degree of co-operation which has been attained with the Commonwealth, with the great and generous peoples of North America, and with our European neighbours.
I come finally to the figures of our gold and dollar reserves, which are a pretty good reminder alike of our performances, our reverses and the duty in front of us. On March 31 last year they were 1,912,000,000 dollars; on September 30 they were down to 1,425,000,000 dollars; on March 31 this year they had climbed back to a figure higher than last year at 1,984,000,000 dollars, but they are not yet back to where they were when Marshall Aid began on March 31, 1948; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the last man in the world who would suggest that we can rest content or breathe with safety until we have worked the figures a long way above their present level.
My Lords, three other Government speakers are to follow me, and the House will therefore forgive me for not attempting to cover some of the very important factors raised by the noble Lord. I have not said anything about the Budget; I have not mentioned housing; I have not referred, except very indirectly, to Government expenditure. We have two full days before us and all these matters will, no doubt, be threshed out. Far-reaching events, some of them sombre, some vastly encouraging, have taken place since our debate early last year or our similar debates in the Autumn. On the one hand, the attitude of Soviet Communism has confronted the Western world ever more starkly with the necessity of making full preparations to defend ourselves and the cause of peace. All this, of course, has grave economic implications. On the other hand, the recent Atlantic discussions and decisions; the striking progress connected with Western Union, which our own Foreign Secretary initiated; the proposal of M. Schuman—that sublime act of Christian statesmanship—its aceptance in the same spirit by the German Chancellor and its warm welcome, still in the same spirit by our own Prime Minister, all hold out new

425
promise and new hopes which cannot be weighed in the balance this afternoon, or perhaps for some time to come. On our own national sector, though our fortunes are bound up so intimately with those of others we are by this time aware of our duty, whatever Government is in power. If any of us can perform more valuable work, if any of us can show more initiative or imagination in business, we must do so; while the need for restraining our claims on the national income, whether in the form of wages or dividends, remains as great as ever it was. I am convinced—we are all convinced—that our country will pull through these material difficulties, whether or not at the precise moment or under the precise arrangements now proposed.
This is my final point, and I hope it will not be thought inappropriate. Are we not all conscious that when we have done all this we shall still have facing us the far deeper, the far more subtle problem, in this mechanised industrial age, of giving dignity and personal meaning to every human life in Britain? On that subject I hope and believe that all the political Parties are searching their minds afresh. It is true that no political Party, not even my own, will ever completely solve it. As the noble Lord, Lord Quickswood, once said in a very different connection many years ago:
"So much depends on the religious bodies."
But for all of us here this issue is never far, I fancy, from the background of our thoughts, even when in the course of our duty we are most absorbed in technical or economic calculations. We are prepared to disagree and dispute with vehemence with one another regarding the material pattern and material framework. But is that not so, my Lords, just because we are all at one in the conviction that the material framework and material pattern exercise a profound influence over the character of the spiritual opportunities provided, and that the spiritual opportunities are what alone ultimately matter in achieving the ends of our society and country—those ends about which there is no disagreement, it seems to me, within this House, and very little within this country at the present time? I am most grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this immense topic before us this afternoon.
4.39 p.m.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, I think I voice all your Lordships' feelings in thanking my noble friend Lord Pakenham for all that he has said, and particularly for the latter part of his speech, which I certainly echo. Before I come to any general remarks of my own I should like to deal with the comment he has made on a speech that I made in November last. I was then referring, as he says, to risk savings. I used the words "private savings," although I ought, perhaps, to have used the words "personal savings" because the White Papers, if I am right, distinguish between "personal saving" and "private saving." So far as I could see, we were making no personal savings at that time. I said so, and I was in very good company. The White Paper on National Incomes for 1948 put the total of net personal savings at £6,000,000. I also noted that at that time net small savings had fallen from £79,000,000 for the period from January to October, 1948, to £9,000,000 for the same period of 1949. If you put these two facts together—the £6,000,000 which the White Paper set clown as the total of personal savings, and the great fall in the small savings figures, I think you will see that I was perfectly justified in following those people, the civil servants who prepare the White Papers, in whom I have a great faith and for whom I have a great respect. Unfortunately, they decided a little later on that they had been wrong. In the next annual income figures, they changed £6,000,000 of personal savings to £195,000,000.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In the same category?
LORD BRAND: In the same category. The figure first given was £6,000,000, and it became £195,000.000. I do not want to bore your Lordships with a lot of figures but I may explain why the change was made. Those who prepare these White Papers take the total personal income of the country, and deduct from it expenditure on total personal consumption and also on total direct taxation. All these underlying figures happened to be wrong. The net result was that the savings were £195,000,000, instead of £6,000,000. As usual, I am quite prepared to accept the word of the Civil Service as being right, and now accept that the figure should have been

427
£195,000,000 instead of £6,000,000. And I am very glad it is so.
I would, however, draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that in the White Paper there are two figures—one for gross personal savings and the other for net personal savings. Gross personal savings this year are given as £427,000,000. It may surprise your Lordships to know that considerably more than half that, £253,000,000, represents death duties. Death duties are regarded as gross personal savings. I do not know who regards them as savings; I think the Government do, perhaps because the Government know that the former owner is now beyond any possibility of spending. Therefore I suppose they regard these duties as savings. If you regard them as savings of the individual who owned the property, it may be that he saved last year or that his family saved them a hundred years ago. Or possibly the saving may have started when Henry VIII was kind to his family in the time of the dissolution of the monasteries and the abbeys. On this basis, I suppose, you can say that anything which anyone possesses in the form of capital is savings, either by himself or by his family—or anything which has accrued to him through fortunate speculation. I personally, therefore, ignore the figure of gross personal savings. I regard it as an abuse of language to call death duties "personal savings." Therefore I think we should take it that the real personal savings of the country this year are not £195,000,000, because that was the figure for 1948, but £174,000,000, which the White Paper says is the figure this year.
Sir Stafford Cripps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the speech to which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, referred, made certain statements to the effect that there were more personal savings this year than in 1938. I have gone into that matter, and while I do not want to repeat all the relevant figures I think it is correct to say that while net personal savings were £144,000,000 in 1938, in 1949, they were, on the same basis—that is at 1938 prices—£110,000,000. On the other hand the national income in 1938 was £4,638,000,000, which is nearly £1,000,000,000 below the figure for 1949—calculated also on the 1938 basis—namely, £5,522,000,000. Therefore the fact that personal savings were less by
428
£34,000,000, on my calculation, than they were in 1938, is intensified by there having been a much bigger national income in 1949 than in 1938.
Now I come to company savings. Of course they are also private savings, but when I spoke in November I did not mean to refer to company savings. I believe that everyone who knows industry will agree that depreciation allowances, which amount to £865,000,000 this year, are too low. We all know that depreciation allowances should be enormously greater now, since costs have gone up so much. I think that everyone agrees that the figure of £865,000,000 is too low. Additions to free reserves are £530,000.000, which is no doubt bigger than the figure for 1938. But, after all, the circumstances are totally different. There have been enormous losses in the war. Moreover, we did not, in my view, spend enough capital on modernising industry before the war. There is great need for new capital. Hitherto, this great need of industry—and I should like the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to listen particularly to this—has been covered up, partly by cash resources arising out of the war, which are now more or less spent, and partly by the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds have been paid in the form either of cash or Government stocks to those people who held securities in what are now nationalised industries. A very large number of these people no doubt did not want to keep these stocks. They wanted to put their money again into equities, and no doubt that money coming from the nationalised industries has gone to a great extent into industry, while the Government stocks which they held have been bought by Government or other institutions. I was looking to the future and considering how funds can be provided for industry in the future.
I believe that you must rely to a great extent on personal savings. It is true that industry can put by a lot of money for its own purposes if times are good. Times have been good, and therefore it has been putting a lot by. But industries cannot themselves subscribe new capital for other industries. New capital for industry has always been found through issues on the stock market, which can be subscribed only by persons and investing institutions. Institutions like trust companies subscribe a good deal, but

429
other institutions, like insurance companies and building societies, to which most of the small savings (the £174,000,000 we are talking about) go, do not subscribe very largely to risk capital. I should like to ask the noble Lord what class of the community he thinks will subscribe on a large scale to capital issues of ordinary shares issued on the market by companies in future. I do not believe that small savers should subscribe to ordinary shares, because they are too risky. What other savers are likely to do so? I repeat my view that we shall find there is a shortage of risk capital in future. I am not talking about undistributed profits, but about new investment in industry; therefore I do not withdraw anything I said in my November speech.
I should like now to come to the few general remarks I wish to make on our internal situation. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, gave us a satisfactory view of the present situation, following in that respect the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that everything on the economic front is now well. Gold reserves are greatly up, production is up, and so are personal savings, but I think real personal savings are not up.
LORD PAKENHAM: I do not think I said that exactly.
LORD BRAND: The further claim has been made that the Budget surplus will just about eliminate inflation, notwithstanding the large capital programme. On the other hand, the Economic Survey admits that more personal savings are needed, and I think the noble Lord echoed that statement. Why is it then that most students of our problems are still seriously concerned? We knew that a great many things in the garden were lovely before devaluation, and yet devaluation took place. Whatever advantage it might have had—and it has had considerable advantages in reducing the dollar gap—it would be fatal ever to do it again. Therefore, we must try to avoid anything that produces such a result.
In my opinion, devaluation was due in the main to two causes. One was the enormous Government expenditure and the fact that we were generally over-trading. The second was due, not as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said the other day, to
430
"wicked lies" but to the fact that the trading world watches every country and considers whether it will hold a particular currency or not. The countries of the world look, not at what wicked people may say but at the figures, and on that basis they decide whether a currency is good or not. Unfortunately, they thought that we were getting into deep waters. They thought they saw the symptoms they had seen in many countries in the last thirty years and that sterling was not a currency to bold in very large amounts. That this was their view was proved by the enormous addition when devaluation came. All the people who had been holding off sterling came back to holding sterling.
The main question we have to decide is: are we going to eliminate inflation? That is to say, are we to stop export costs, from rising? If not, there will again be a danger to the balance of payments. That is the critical question. What concerns most observers is that we appear to have no margin anywhere. Government expenditure is at top-notch; taxation is at top-notch; labour is pressing for higher wages; prices are rising. The noble Lord said that retail prices had risen by only 2 per cent. Every month I see a statement of wholesale prices since devaluation. I can only hope that retail prices will not rise much more, but looking at the wholesale prices I cannot think that we shall not see a further rise in the cost of living. What we have to realise is that we are spending our national resources on three main objects. We have to provide, first of all, for our population as consumers, secondly, for our very large capital programme, which is rightly stated at about 20 per cent. of our total resources, and thirdly, for the truly huge current Government expenditure. Even allowing for an increase in production this year, can we produce enough, and can we save enough?
There are some economists who would like to cut home consumption further by more restrictions and controls. I believe that to be too difficult and not desirable. Other economists consider, as I do, that the central problem is the fact that public authorities are now taking just 40 per cent. of the gross national product, and that is too great. The increase in Government expenditure has been extraordinary. In other directions we have

431
had great austerity, but not in this direction. Between 1948 and 1949 the increase was £342,000,000, and this year it is to be £183,000,000 more—a total of £525,000,000 in two years. Moreover, the Chancellor constantly warns us that social services are going to cost more, and revenues are more likely to fall than stay as they are when bad times come. This leads me to interject one other comment. All this being so, what do we feel able to do for the Atlantic Pact and for more defence?
What has led to this enormous increase? The Economist recently estimated that expenditure on social services, including education and subsidies, rose from £1,048,000,000 in 1946 to £1,800,000,000 in 1949—that is, by just under £800,000,000. While social services are very desirable, it is necessary for the country to realise that social service expenditure must be kept within the country's resources. I believe that taxation represents too large a percentage of our total resources and it is this which renders the avoidance of inflation very difficult. The Chancellor, however, sees no serious harm in it, though I cannot think he wished to see the enormous increases in expenditure which have actually taken place. We have to consider how this increase affects our most vital interests.
I should like to quote one or two figures, based on the Economic Survey. It is expected that the national income in 1950 and at 1950 prices will increase by £500,000,000. We want £120,000,000 out of that £500,000,000 to improve our balance of payments, as this means increasing exports and replacing imports. The public authorities are taking £180,000,000 more, and together that comes to £300,000,000. The capital programme is reduced by £38,000,000. This leaves for public consumption in this coming year £238,000,000. But, as the Economic Survey assumes, probably rightly, an addition of 2 per cent. increase in prices, that takes £160,000,000, which leaves for additional real consumption in this next year £78,000,000. I consider that that is a very small sum, and I am doubtful whether we shall be able to keep our increased consumption within those bounds, particularly because incomes will considerably increase through the increase of the total national income.
432
This is all very important, as your Lordships know, because inflation must be avoided; inflation puts up export costs and our exports are vital. It is not only that we need to maintain the present rate of our exports, but that we need a great increase. I admit that we have made great progress, but times may be more difficult and we want to increase our exports greatly for several reasons. As the noble Lord has said, we are still restricted in our imports to, I think it is, 87 per cent. of 1938 volume. We should like to get back to free imports. Then we have to repay debt. The repayment of the American-Canadian debt has to be started shortly. As the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, pointed out, our sterling balances are now higher than they have ever been, although we have paid off many hundreds of millions. Of the total, £2,000,000.000 are absolutely free, and quite rightly so. They represent the balances of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and many other countries in the world. We cannot take goods from those countries, let them deposit the sterling in our country and then say that they cannot use that sterling. Therefore, we have to be ready to pay out very large sums, if our creditors call upon us to do so. I feel also—perhaps this is not quite consistent with what Lord Cherwell said—that we shall probably have to be a considerable exporter of capital to the Commonwealth and other countries. I do not think we shall be able to avoid that. More important than all, we have to increase our reserves. Until we greatly increase our reserves, we shall always be on the edge of something serious happening: if anything happens in the outside world we topple over, because we have no reserves. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that our gold and dollar reserves are the thermometer by which we tell our health, though it may be a peculiar thermometer because it is when it falls that we are in danger.
To my mind, all this means that we shall want something like 200 per cent. of 1938 exports instead of 150 per cent. For so large an increase as that, we must produce more, unless we can rob one of the three existing claimants to our resources to which I have referred. But the Government deny any possibility of decreasing their expenditure. And how can we reduce the consumption of the public? To

433
my mind, it would not be practicable to do so by putting more taxation on them or by additional controls. Possibly, as an alternative, we might have to cut our capital programme. But I hope that we shall not cut the capital programme for manufacturing industry, which according to the Economic Survey is only £450,000,000 out of a total of something like £2,500,000,000, and compared to which fuel and power and transport take £518,000,000, or more than is taken by the whole of the rest of manufacturing industry.
In my view, it was quite apparent from 1945 and earlier that this external problem was the great problem we should have to face. It was on restoring our external strength that any Government should have concentrated. In other words, the whole of our internal policy should have been guided by our external needs. There are not two problems, but only one, because what we do internally more or less determines what happens to us externally. Ever since 1945 the external aspect required A.1 priority—and by "external aspect" I mean the restoration of sound money, making sterling a strong currency and increasing our gold and dollar reserves. On this depends our internal stability, our standard of living and our freedom from unemployment—everything that a Welfare State is considered to denote. Mr. Attlee said the other day that his Government had given as close attention to our overseas trade position as the Coalition Government gave to the progress of the war. That may be true, but his definition should have been widened, and the Government should have given the same attention to our external problem as a whole as the Coalition Government gave to the progress of the war. It is difficult to accept Mr. Attlee's statement as meaning that, because it would mean that the Government should never have allowed Government expenditure and taxation to rise to its present height. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the greatest opponent of inflation, has been compelled to swallow huge increases of Government expenditure. I say "compelled" because I feel he must have understood the consequences. While on the one front he has made a gallant fight against inflation, he has let in the enemy by another door by immense increases in the demands on the Government. I
434
realise all the political difficulties that existed in 1945, but I feel that we might have conquered them by 1947 or 1943, since when there has been a great increase in expenditure.
If costs are not in future competitive because of inflation, we are likely to be back in the difficulties of the 'thirties, particularly with Germany and Japan coming into the field. There is no solution for us by the popular, what might be called, Keynesian remedies—Budget deficits and other methods of increasing internal demand. That would merely add to the difficulties of our case by putting up prices internally. It is a total illusion, in my view, to think that the Government's policy has given us security, and particularly security against unemployment. I do not think any Government can give this country security against unemployment, certainly not unless it increases our external strength. The Welfare Stare depends, first of all, on our capacity to reach external stability. We are just like a ship at sea exposed to every storm. Our ship has been badly damaged in the war, and our first task after the war should have been to make it shipshape, even ahead of making the cabins and the crew's quarters much more comfortable. I feel that to some extent our policy has also been like building a house and putting in a lot of furniture, but forgetting to put the roof on and the windows in.
We cannot make ourselves shipshape by more taxation; nor can we reduce taxation without a reduction in Government expenditure. Therefore we always come back to the same question: If we are going to leave the capital programme as it is, can we reduce Government expenditure? The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has asked—as I knew he would—"What would you cut?" Well, I am not a politician, but I have said in the past that I would gradually cut subsidies and that I would certainly make the public pay something towards the health system. In both cases the Government could probably save a large sum of money. Another answer is that if Government expenditure is too great it will be cut, because it will cut itself. When the burdens are too great, as history shows by endless examples, the burden is reduced by inflation; and if the burden is too great, that is what will happen.

435
Despite the dangers of inflation, I fully agree that we see some encouraging symptoms. The increase in our reserves is striking; the improvement in our balance of payments is great and the increased production is also encouraging, though I personally am not so enthusiastic about what we have done as the noble Lord. I think people forget the war-time years. War-time is a period when methods of increasing production of wealth are inclined to grow faster than at any other time in history. We must go back, not to 1946 and say that there has been a 40 per cent. increase, but to 1938 and say that it is twelve years at 2½ per cent. per annum, which amounts to 30 per cent. I believe that wealth increases, so to speak, by compound interest, and therefore I think 30 per cent. is rather low.
I do not believe that there is any insuperable difficulty to much more production than we have now. That is the real hope for the 50,000,000 people in this country. It is not because people must work harder or better, but because the methods of wealth production improve year by year. Moreover, we have spent an enormous amount of capital since the war, and we have a larger labour force. Therefore, personally I think that our production ought to have been up to quite as much as it is now. Unemployment, of course, may come in future. The danger of its being serious will be magnified enormously unless by that time we have really strengthened our external position. And that is what I come back to. If the Government cannot reduce expenditure, we must look to greater production. In that case I think we may go through a very dangerous time. In present conditions I do not expect to see inflation entirely eliminated this year, and this would be a serious matter. But I do expect to see production up by more than 2½ per cent.—which is what I think the Economic Survey estimates—unless we get blows from outside. If we do get blows from outside, of course, everything may be different.
My main object in the remarks I have made is to impress upon your Lordships that it is the remedying of our external weakness which must have first priority with any Government; that any Government which aims at the maintenance of full employment only is living in a fool's
436
paradise, unless it gives the external question precedence—and giving first priority does not mean simply the boosting of exports, but involves the conduct of our whole economic policy, internal as well as external, towards the same end. From this point of view it is evident how wholly irrelevant to our problems—indeed, how harmful—further nationalisation would be. But it means more than that. It means steps to remedy our over-extended position and to reduce the Government's internal commitments. This is no doubt dangerous, but everything is dangerous. Particularly dangerous is that our Ship of State should meet a storm from outside while we are in the condition in which we are. The Government recognise that they are betting on quite a lot of things to go right if serious trouble is to be avoided. We are entitled to ask them what they have in mind to do if some of the bets go wrong.
5.17 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, we have listened, as we always do, with great attention to the noble Lord who has just sat down, I think there will be a large measure of agreement on all sides of the House with much that he has said, though some of us will naturally not be able to accept all his conclusions. I do not propose to deal with many of his points in detail, though in the course of my remarks I want to question one statement of fact which I understood him to make. I think I heard him correctly, and if so I think it was a slip of the tongue to which he committed himself—but I will cone to the point a little later in my speech.
I propose to deal very shortly with four or five main subjects. The first point relates to the facts. My noble friend Lord Pakenham, speaking for the Government, has given your Lordships' House a number of facts about the increase in production and other matters. I have a feeling that some noble Lords think these are ex-parte figures, intended to prove a certain point and that a little analysis would show that some of these figures were unreliable. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that only last week a very great economist, Mr. Reddaway, read a paper to the Royal Statistical Society in which he analysed the figures relating to production. No

437
doubt he started to a large extent with the Government official figures. He shows, after a complete analysis and a full discussion in the course of his paper, that are conclusions which he reaches go almost entirely with the Government figures.
The next subject with which I want to deal is the question of inflation. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, held up to some derision the fact that the inflation in this country during the first two or three years which followed the war was much greater than in the last few years of the war itself. Well, the answer to that is perfectly clear to anyone who takes the trouble to discover it. The reason, of course, is that during the war we had the full benefit of Lend-Lease, which covered not only munitions of war but also food and the other necessities of the population. Therefore, inflation in this country was rigidly kept down by the full efforts of Lend-Lease. The moment the war ended Lend-Lease stopped absolutely short with a jerk. Not only were no further goods sent on the way, but even those goods which were already in the pipeline were suddenly cut off; and, of course, the effect of that was to create inflation, because there was more money looking for goods than there were goods which money could purchase.
LORD BRAND: I think the pipeline goods were released afterwards.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I was in the Government at the time, and I can assure the noble Lord that the goods in the pipeline always had to be paid for.
LORD BRAND: Paid for—yes.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: They were all part of the expenditure. The goods kept on coming from the United States all the time, but during the war they came free under Lend-Lease. The main fact is that the generous gesture of Lend-Lease, which meant that during the war we received vast quantities of goods free, ceased suddenly when the war came to an end; and, so far as the goods were concerned, that position was never altered. Mr. Truman himself, President of the United States, said only a few weeks ago that he regretted very much that he had taken that decision.
LORD BRAND: I carried on the negotiations in Washington and I know the
438
position. The noble Lord is right when he says that the goods had to be paid for. Nevertheless, as regards his point about inflation I must point out that some 5,000,000 dollars or more from the U.S. and Canada went some way to help to do what Lend-Lease did before —and we received that amount.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think we are agreed on the facts, but I draw a slightly different inference from that which the noble Lord draws. But I think that he, out of his knowledge, and I, if I may say so, out of mine, agree on the facts.
Now with regard to inflation at the present time, the suggestion is that the Government have been lax. Judging by the standards of all previous Chancellors of the Exchequer, I think it is a remarkable situation that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer budgeted in two successive years for a very large above-the-line margin and balance. I doubt whether any Government would have budgeted for so large an above-the-line balance. Last year, however, we had not only an above-the-line balance but also a considerable below-the-line balance—a thing that had never been dreamed of in years gone by. I challenge noble Lords opposite to say that if the present Government had been defeated and a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the place of Sir Stafford Cripps they would have seen a larger below-the-line balance than we have at the present time.
I now come to sterling balances. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Brand, to say that sterling balances were standing at a higher figure to-day than they had ever stood before. What I think he must have meant was that they have gone up during the last year. I have here what I think is a reliable journal, Barclays Bank Review, in which they give the total sterling balances for the whole of the last six years. I find the balances were £3,663,000,000. On December 31, 1946, they rose to £3,701,000,000. In the following December they fell to £3,572,000,000. They were £3,359,000,000 on December 31, 1948, and they had fallen by June 30, 1949, to £3,234,000,000. It was only in the last half of 1949, according to these figures, that they saw a rise; they saw a rise of £110,000,000 in the last six months. Nevertheless, this

439
figure at which they stood on December 31, 1949, is lower than all the figures at the end of successive years.
LORD BRAND: I accept the noble Lord's figures, though I think he has made a slight mistake: the latest figure, so far as I know, is £3,550,000,000. They were slightly higher at one time—they were, I believe, £3,700,000,000. I think we have paid off between £500,000,000 and £600,000,000.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The noble Lord says there is some slight misunderstanding. But, surely, a great part of his argument was based on the fact that the figures were higher than ever before.
LORD BRAND: I did not base my argument on the total of £3,550,000,000 but on the £2,000,000,000 free sterling balances which we had to meet. The remainder are blocked in some form, and therefore do not matter so much. But the £2,000,000,000 free balances are naturally a very serious weight on our economy, because we do not know when we may be called upon to meet them.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The point I was making was one of fact. I will quote the comment by the writer in Barclay's Bank Review:
"It will not escape notice that the sterling balances of sterling area countries increased appreciably in the second half of 1949, this being a partial measure of the increase in the dollar earning power of the rest of the sterling area and of the readiness of the countries concerned to remit those earnings to London and accumulate the proceeds in sterling."
In other words, the vast increase in the last six months to the end of 1949, and the further increase in 1950 to which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Brand, was referring, are mainly due to the increased confidence in sterling which has recently taken place.
It is there that I want to make my strongest case against the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. This is not the first time that Lord Cherwell has attacked what he calls the "indiscriminate handing out of money" to other parts of the sterling area. I think he is wholly wrong, both in his facts and in his inferences—in his facts because there was no such indiscriminate handing out. I can tell your Lordships that during the period when I was in the
440
Government the utmost effort was made to prevent other countries unnecessarily being paid what the noble Lord has called "unrequited exports." I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brand, will agree with me when I say that we are the bankers of the sterling world. Does the noble Lord seriously imagine that if we were to adopt the policy of buttoning up our coat and saying to these countries "In no circumstances are we ever going to pay you a single penny of your credit balance at our bank," we should in that way add to the confidence in sterling or in this country? Of course not. It would be the exact reverse. We have to use discretion. We have to say in effect, "We cannot let you have all that money at once." But if we took the view that in no conceivable circumstances were we going to pay these people any money I am sure that that would be the most disastrous thing we could do. I am glad that our Government have not adopted anything like so foolish a course.
What part have the Government played otherwise in helping to improve the position with regard to the sterling area? As the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, pointed out, it is essential, if we are to keep South-East Asia going as a paying concern, to enable it to resist Communism, to give to the countries of South-East Asia freedom and yet retain them in our confidence, that we should not be too negative in placing sonic resources at their disposal. We are bound to take that course. As the central country of the Commonwealth, we cannot refuse to pay out money. Of course, we have to take every care in view of our difficult position. We must not be reckless, or even as liberal or generous as we should like to be. But we have to be generous up to a point, or we may lose the whole confidence of the Commonwealth and of the world outside.
What the Government have done in the field of finance they have also done—and it is commonly approved—in their political attitude towards the countries of South-East Asia generally. We could not have taken the attitude that some people think we should have taken. We have had to take a liberal attitude, and it is only by taking a liberal attitude that we have saved not only the prosperity and strength of the Commonwealth but also at the same time our financial strength. In that connection, there is one thing I

441
want to say. I want to repeat what a very prominent Malay said to me only a few weeks ago. He said: "We are spending an immense amount of money on this Malayan civil war. Part of the reason is that we have taken the wrong line." What did he mean by that? He meant that if we continue to say to the rebels: "Unconditional surrender. When you come in or we capture you, we are going to slit your throats," we shall never get peace. When a war is proceeding, it is a common thing to preach the doctrine of unconditional surrender; but we have had in the last few months expressions of regret by prominent statesmen that they ever adopted the phrase "unconditional surrender" during the last world war. This man said to me: "If you would say to these rebels" (they are nearly all Chinese, not native Malayans) "We will deport you back to China and get rid of you. We do not want you in this country. We will spare your lives and you can go'—if you would take that view, you would bring the war to a much earlier end." I am not an expert on Malaya. I report that suggestion to this House because I think it is a very important one which ought not to be entirely disregarded.
I have taken up long enough. I do not want to occupy any more of your Lordships' attention. I want only to make a final quotation from the same writer in the Barclays Bank Review that I quoted for another purpose earlier on. I commend the quotation to the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, who is always deprecating the efforts not only of the Government but also of the British people in their magnificent fight to hold their end up since the war. Speaking of the dollar gap, the writer winds up with this statement:
"On all this evidence, therefore, it will be seen that a clear answer can he given to the question whether the United Kingdom has paid its way since the end of 1945. It has not. But in mitigation of that negative, it may be said, firstly, that the abnormal deficits incurred in the early part of that period were in large measure the tail end of the financial profligacy with which the war had to be waged in order to achieve victory; and secondly, that the trend shows a marked improvement which has clearly continued into the current year and which has enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to claim in his recent Budget speech that 'we are at the moment in overall balance—indeed, almost certainly in overall surplus—with the rest of the world.'"
5.35 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I have listened to the debates in this House for some weeks. I confess that from time to time I felt very much like David Copperfield on one occasion, when we are told he felt "very, very young." I therefore ask your Lordships' indulgence for this, the first speech I make in this House. I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, in opening the debate. Like many others, he attacked planned economy practically all the way through his speech. As I heard him speaking (and I confess it was not the first time I had been in this frame of mind since I came to your Lordships' House) I wondered whether or not I lived in the same country as he, because, as a result of planned economy, I have seen take place in this country probably one of the greatest and quietest social revolutions of which history has record.
I have seen meanly clad, meanly shod, meanly fed people practically disappear from Great Britain. To speak intimately of one great industry that I know very well and in which my life has been spent, I have seen a change not only of material standards but also of temper that I should have thought was almost impossible under any system at all. The Minister of Labour in another place was recently asked to give comparative figures of the days lost as the result of strikes since the war finished in 1945, and he stated that 10,750,000 days had been lost through strikes. That seems a very large figure, but he also told the country that the number of days lost by strikes in the comparative period after the First World War was 170,000,000. Those are very striking figures indeed. Noble Lords on both sides of your Lordships' House who were in another place after the First World War, as I was myself, will remember those stormy years. But to me the greatest change that has taken place is in the attitude of the men working in that great industry which was at the root of much of the trouble —at least, it was the advance guard of a good deal of those troubles between the wars—namely, the mining industry. To me the most moving thing about the change that has taken place under a planned economy is that men often come to me and say, "You know, we are respected now." Nationalisation has brought back to the men in that industry

443
a sense of self respect which they had almost lost.
I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, to find out what was the alternative he, and those for whom he speaks, proposed. Do they stand for an unplanned economy? I have heard them speak a good deal of the old days of freedom and liberty. Speaking at first hand, I must say that in my own community there is more freedom and happiness to-day than I have ever seen in my lifetime. Those of us who love this country, whatever criticisms we may have of the particular mechanics of the Government's policy, ought to make it known to the world, with pride, that meanly dressed, meanly fed and meanly shod children, and great areas of unhappy people, no longer exist in this country.
If I may be personal, may I say that, as most people know, I worked in the mining industry for long years and I was very proud of my craftsmanship. In those so-called halcyon days described by the present Leader of the Opposition in his book on his early life, when he speaks of the time when the rich were rich and the poor were poor, I had regular work, and I was not, I think, a bad craftsman. The House will forgive me for being personal. I did not drink or smoke; all I wanted was a good book now and then. But how difficult that book was to get! Life was a very poverty-stricken thing in those days which many people think were some of the best days in this country's history. It was that that made deep dissatisfaction run through great communities in this land and it was that which made some of us fight for national ownership of the mines. I am not going to say that the national ownership that we have is the last word in perfection. No clear-thinking citizen would claim that, least of all any miner. He is very conscious of the shortcomings, and I frankly confess to the House that I should never be satisfied with that old wooden thing that on the Continent was sometimes called nationalisation.
However, I think that the National Coal Board have proved to the country and to the world that an industry can be nationalised to the advantage of the industry as well as of the people of the country. The Coal Board had a terrible heritage, and it was inevitably a terrible
444
heritage. The Reid Report revealed the evils of disorganisation in the mines, but some of us could have written an even more acute report. The National Coal Board have to re-organise the mines on a great scale. It will take years to put the industry into shape and make it the great asset which it ought to be to the people of this country. The Board have to make roadways and put the mines into modern condition. I remember very well their condition in hundreds of cases before the war. In the mines of Great Britain, sometimes in mines owned by great companies, there were roadways through which the men said a rat could not have passed. The Board have to make those roadways safe.
Once upon a time, when there were about a million men employed in the mining industry, something like 1,200 lives were lost each year. I remember how I used to watch the figures. I was very glad to see, in the latest figures, that from the 868 killed in 1938, when there were about 750,000 men employed, the number had dropped to 468 last year. That is an achievement that ought to be known and underlined. Every good citizen ought to find pleasure in the thought that this dangerous calling is being made safer. There was a time when if men were injured and did not quickly recover—perhaps they had a broken leg—there was no work for them; they were what were called light-rate compensation men. They were to be seen about the place for years and they became useless. But now hardly a man is injured but that arrangements are made to train and rehabilitate him, so that he may go back into his industry and become a useful citizen again.
I understand that a Royal Commission is to be held in a few minutes, and your Lordships have been so kind to me that have been carried away and have missed out a good deal of what I intended to say. What I should like to say in conclusion, however, is this. This great thing which we call industry is like a world within a world. It has grown to vast proportions in my time. We older ones have seen a second industrial revolution brought about by oil, whereby the light industries have come into being. That has affected every country in the world and is at the root not only of national but of great international problems. I sometimes think with pride of

445
the contribution which this country has made to the world's well-being in such matters as government, law, literature, social conduct and in many other ways, and I ask myself: Is it not possible that, by reason of this Government's planned economy, which may be adopted by other Governments in years to come, we are now making a great contribution towards the solution of the great industrial problems that trouble the world? May it not be that just as vie have led the way in many other matters, so out of our experience as the nation which was struck by the first industrial revolution we shall be in the van in facing these problems? This, at least, I will say: I am very glad to have lived to see a day, whether under this or any other Government, when men, women and children who once were broken and helpless have gained new hope and greater happiness. There is now an essential freedom which have not previously known in my time. I thank your Lordships.
5.59 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: It may be convenient if the House now adjourns during pleasure. The debate will be resumed immediately after the Royal Commission by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

High Court and County Court Judges,

Newfoundland (Consequential Provisions),

Statute Law Revision,

Diplomatic Privileges (Extension),

St. John's Chapel Beverley,

Gun Barrel Proof,

Tees Conservancy,

City of London (Various Powers),

German Potash Syndicate Loan.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
6.10 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, when the noble Lord who had just resumed his seat before the intermission and I entered another place on the same day in November, 1922, I am sure it cannot have crossed the mind of either of us that nearly thirty years later it would be my privilege to congratulate him on his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. It would be an impertinence on my part to comment upon the matter of the noble Lord's observations. He has spent a lifetime in public controversy and passed through many ministerial appointments, finally ending up as a Cabinet Minister. Therefore, obviously on any subject, and particularly on that subject which is dearest to his heart, he has a contribution of value to make. I should not like this occasion to pass without saying that during the seventeen years that he and I sat opposite to one another in another place I never heard about him, from any member of any Party, any word other than of admiration and affection. I have a specially warm feeling for him, because some years ago he was very kind to my eldest son when he spent three months working in the Durham coal mines. Needless to say, we shall have the pleasure of hearing from the noble Lord on many future occasions, and we can be quite certain that every time he will speak with great sincerity and integrity.
My Lords, the difficulty of any actor trying to play Macbeth is that he has to be absent from the stage for twenty minutes during the tribulations of the Macduff family and, therefore, has to re-create the atmosphere which was there before he left. Now after an intermission we have to re-create the atmosphere of our economic debate. Anyone who votes Conservative, I venture to submit, desires above all things a substantial reduction of taxation, and a favourite adjective on the lips of all Conservative spokesmen in this connection is the word "drastic." "We must have drastic economy," they say, "leading to drastic reduction of taxation." That remark is invariably met by the retort which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, made this afternoon: "Show us where you will get it." This retort is by no

447
means popular with responsible Conservative spokesmen. They are apt to say: "Put us in power and we will show you how"; or, "I cannot commit myself without knowledge of the inside figures," or something of that sort. One can thoroughly sympathise with responsible Conservative spokesmen in these somewhat evasive replies, because naturally they are afraid that if they commit themselves to anything definite the words they use may be taken out of their context and used in propaganda against them; and, moreover, their words may be held to commit the official policy of the Conservative Party. But in the dim obscurity of this Back Bench I am not handicapped by any of these inhibitions and, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to attempt for a few minutes to give you my idea of the definition of the word "drastic."
One of the commonest illusions under which the devoted electorate suffer is the idea that all these social benefits which they enjoy are obtained by the congenial process of "soaking the rich." This idea is carefully fostered by Socialist spokesmen—as witness Mr. Douglas Jay in the penultimate sentence of his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in another place. He said that the Welfare State has to be paid for, and we are paying for it by high taxation of companies' profits, of big incomes and of large fortunes. Let us examine that. The first point to be settled is what constitutes a rich man. I have often been intrigued by this, particularly in connection with the National Savings Movement about which Lord Pakenham spoke this afternoon. At what point in the eyes of the Socialist orator does an individual cease to be a deserving citizen who is unselfishly putting aside part of his hard-won earnings in order to lend to the Government and become instead a hard-faced capitalist hoarding his ill-gotten gains and grinding the faces of the poor? There must be a dividing line, and perhaps the noble Lord who is to follow me will devote a moment or two to clarifying the point.
At any rate, we must assume that anybody who pays surtax belongs to the latter undesirable class. It is all the more disappointing, therefore, to find that we get only £120,000,000 a year from
448
surtax, a mere 2½ per cent. of our total expenditure. Then let me turn to death duties, from which we get £195,000,000, representing about 5 per cent. of our total expenditure. It cannot be said that anything like the whole of death duties is culled from rich men, because death duties start on estates of £2,000, and a person who after a lifetime of effort has not saved, say, between £2,000 and £8,000 has not been extremely successful except of course in a certain walk of life, and it cannot be argued for a moment that a person who leaves under £10,000 is a rich man, As the estates of those persons vastly outnumber the estates whose spectacular leavings are thought worthy of printing in the popular Press, I submit that it would be generous to assume that £130,000,000 of death duties are culled from rich men. Add that to the surtax, and it gives a total of £250,000,000.
Let me now turn to the profits tax, which brings in £270,000,000. Sir Stafford Cripps himself tells us that £60,000,000 is found by the undistributed profits tax, though that can be put back by companies to make good deterioration and depreciation. What of the odd £210,000,000? Reflect, my Lords, that in the Midland Bank there are 73,400 shareholders, and of that number no fewer than 38,000 hold £100 of stock or less, and a further 24,000 hold between £100 and £300 of stock. I venture to think that, in due proportion, that remark is true of any other public company. Therefore, it is obvious that a very large number of shareholders are by no means rich people; and so I submit that if I allow £150,000,000 of the profits tax as attributable to rich men that would be an over-generous estimate. Add that amount to the others and you get £400,000,000.
Now let us tackle the income tax figure of £1,406,000,000. We have a useful figure here, culled from Whitaker's Almanack for 1948. We find that in 1948 20,000,000 people paid £455,000,000 in pay-as-you-earn income tax. Straight away, that reduces the £1,406,000,000 to £1,000,000,000. But what of the remaining £1,000,000,000? There are 9,000,000 people whose incomes are between £250 and £500 a year; there are a further 1,500,000 people whose incomes are between £500 and £750 a year, and there are a further 1,000,000 with incomes between £750 and £2,000. Therefore I

449
submit that if I agree that £600,000,000 of the income tax return is culled from rich men, that is a generous estimate. Add that to the others, and you get £1,000,000,000. What is the object of all these calculations which I have been submitting to your Lordships? It is that the idea that all these social services are paid for by rich men is entirely inaccurate. £1,000,000,000 will pay the interest on the National Debt—£537,000,000—and about half the cost of the Armed Forces—£781,000,000. That is right and proper because, as we know from a thousand Socialist platforms, rich men have always encouraged past wars because of the profits they made out of them, and will encourage future wars with the same laudable object. Therefore, the whole of that £3,000,000,000 of our annual expenditure is found not by rich men but by the devoted citizens whose votes all Parties so sedulously solicit.
I have rounded the corners, and am getting into the straight to deal with this word "drastic." Before I get there may I make two points? The first is that it is not possible to "soak" the rich any more—at any rate, so far as their incomes are concerned. Socialist politicians admit that themselves, and that is why the younger and brighter intellects among them are now so keen upon another capital levy. It is important that we should pay great attention to the opinions of these younger rising men, because, of course, Messrs. Attlee and Bevin and so on, after long and honourable service, are obviously on the way out. Whether they will in due course join the noble Viscount in these restful regions remains to be seen, but it is the younger men whose opinions are of growing importance to us.
Such younger men as Mr. Douglas Jay, Mr. Gaitskell and Mr. Crossman—two of whom, by the way, have been gathered to the breast of Sir Stafford Cripps at the Treasury—are openly in favour of a capital levy, and always advocate it under the ægis of their prophet, Kingsley Martin, of the New Statesman. They have not in mind a 5 per cent. affair, such as that inflicted by Sir Stafford Cripps—they talk about a large capital tax. So also do the twelve bright young men who wrote that pamphlet known as Keeping Left shortly before the Election. I am not seized of any pronouncement by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, on this subject, but of
450
course he is of that vintage. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, he is the only bud in bloom in an otherwise somewhat blown bunch. I3ut it is only reasonable to suppose that if he is to keep in step with leis contemporaries in their march towards the heights of Olympus, then it is highly likely that he shares their views on this point.
LORD PAKENHAM: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I would point out that I am much more likely to share the views of the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Secretary of State for War, having been educated at the same school as those Ministers, Eton College, while nearly all the gentlemen mentioned by the noble Lord were educated at Winchester, which I believe was the home of the noble Viscount opposite.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I understand that all the more reputable representatives, in both Houses and of both schools, repudiate those theories, but that those who have attained to wealth and distinction on the Government Benches from both schools join in support of what my noble friend is now expounding.
LORD BLACKFORD: I will not enter into this inter-school business. I cannot help thinking that it is designed to put me off my stride, so I had better get on to the other points which I was making, one of which was with regard to the word "drastic." That is a very important point—namely, that no drastic reduction of taxation can be made without a drastic reversal of policy. Now if you meet any average Conservative in the street, he will ask: "When are you going to get rid of this wretched Government?" I always say, when I am asked that question: "Well, what do you expect a Conservative Government to do for you?" Ten to one, he will say: "I expect a drastic reduction in my taxation." I always say to him: "Now how would you bring that about?" He will say: "I would get rid of half of these blasted civil servants."
Now I want to quote Mr. Benson, the honourable Member for Chesterfield. Mr. Benson, it is true, is a Socialist, but he is a highly respected one and a very moderate one. He has been for many years a member of the Public Accounts Committee. In his speech on the Budge Resolutions in another place he said, in

451
effect, that high taxation has come to stay because of the Welfare State, and that no substantial reduction can be made without a reversal of policy. He went on to deal with this question of the Civil Service. He said that there may be some waste in the Civil Service, but that under existing policies it would be quite impossible to reduce the Civil Service by 25 per cent. Even admitting that it could be reduced by 25 per cent., taking the average salary at £400 a year, there would be a possible saving of £44,000,000 a year. I do not despise £44,000,000 a year, but it is equal to only 4d. off the income tax—and that is not my idea of the word "drastic."
Now, my Lords, I am on the uphill to the post in dealing with this word "drastic" and it is here that I come under the whip. If I have a herd of one hundred cows and insufficient food to feed them, what constitutes the word "drastic" in relation to the reduction of my herd? Obviously, only such reduction as will cut down the number of cows to tit the food. Let me apply that to taxation. The taxation in this country is 8s. 4d. in the £ of the national income. The taxation in the United States, which is the next highest taxed country, is equivalent to 5s. 6d. in the £ of the national income. The taxation in all other countries is considerably lower than that. Is it thought that, in the long run, we can succeed with taxation 25 per cent. higher than that of the United States—the next most highly taxed country? If it is apparent that we cannot, then, of course, a reduction of something like £1,000,000,000 a year will have to be made in our annual expenditure—and it will not surprise me if in years to come something of that sort is forced upon us. I am not suggesting that to-day; but I do suggest a reduction of £600,000,000 a year in our national expenditure.
How can that be effected? I should save £200,000,000 on the food subsidies. In theory, that would increase the cost of living of a family of four by 5s. 6d. a week. Even if that were so, I believe that it could be met by a reduction in taxation which would more than compensate for that. But I do not believe that, after the first two or three months when things settled down, the halving of food subsidies would lead to anything like such an increase in the cost of living as that. I
452
believe that the price of food throughout the world, so far as we are concerned, would tend to right itself. We should get on to a solid basis instead of the present fancy basis. There may be something in what Mr. Stanley Evans said (and was duly crucified for saying it in such a tactless way) that one part of the community is being unduly cosseted at the expense of another. Anyway, I should get £200,000,000 there.
I should get another £200,000,000 from the National Health Services. I do not know whether your Lordships think it desirable that a person who can perfectly well afford to pay should be able to go and get a couple of pairs of spectacles free of charge—not steel-framed, standard affairs but nice folding plastic ones—from an expensive optician in Wigmore Street, at the public charge. Only a few weeks ago I was told that a ship at Liverpool was held up from Saturday to Tuesday, unable to sail because several Indian lascars among the crew of that ship had not got their free spectacles; delivery could not be made before Monday, and the lascars would not sail without them. Is it right that anybody can get a nice wig, or dentures, or surgical boots, or bath chairs at the public expense whether he or she can well afford to pay for them or not? I consider that such action is financial insanity. I think that any nation which persists in such a course is bound to find itself on the financial rocks. These two services spend about £900,000,000. I have said nothing about the Fighting Services, which spend amongst them over £781,000,000. If there is not any waste in the three Fighting Services, then they are the only Government Department in the history of man in which that is so. It is the same with Education and in other Departments. Therefore, I should confidently rely upon getting a 10 per cent. reduction from the remaining £2,000,000,000 which is covered by the various Departments.
I have struggled past the post and now I come up to the congenial task of suggesting the manner of splitting up the prize money—this £600,000,000 which has been saved.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: This is an exceedingly interesting calculation, and we are much obliged to the noble Lord. May I ask whether we are to understand

453
that he considers he will get his £200,000,000 by knocking off the spectacles and the bath chairs and so forth?
LORD BLACKFORD: No. I ought to have spent a little longer on that subject, but I did not want to detain noble Lords. It might, however, mean that there would have to be a drastic modification of the administration of our hospitals—and I do not know that that would be a bad thing. The treasurer of one of our largest hospitals told me last week-end that the cost of running his hospital had exactly quadrupled since the hospitals had been nationalised. I was talking at lunch to-day with someone also connected with hospitals and he told me the same thing. Indeed, I was myself connected with one of the London hospitals for some time, until I had to leave it on account of pressure of other work; and I saw that the cost of running that hospital was increasing by leaps and bounds. I have taken care to say that it is not possible In effect these drastic reductions without a reversal of policy. I know that I lay myself open to criticism in making this suggestion but, after all, I am speaking from an obscure position.
Let me get back to the question of the "prize money." I should divide my £600,000,000 into four packets of £150,000,000 each. £150,000,000 represents 1s. off the income tax. If you subdivide that into two packets of £75,000,000, one packet would make a 1s. 6d. reduction on earned income, and the remaining £75,000,000 would mean a 6d. reduction on unearned income. That would be a great added incentive to all persons in employment. The second packet of £150,000,000 represents exactly half the purchase tax. I understand that the purchase tax is very unpopular with housewives, and this amount of money would certainly help towards a reduction in the cost of living by doing away with half the purchase tax. This would mean that only articles of luxury would be liable to purchase tax. The third packet of £150,000,000 represents more than half the beer duty of £267,000,000. That would mean a reduction of about 5d. or 5½d. on the cost of a pint of beer.
My last £150,000,000 could be used to knock off a quarter of the £610,000,000 which we spend on tobacco. For dollar
454
reasons I do not suggest that. We could take a choice as to what we should do with that £150,000,000. Supposing, for instance, that we were totally to abolish the entertainment tax of £46,000,000 and also the duties on tea, cocoa, coffee, sugar, matches, artificial silk and silk, that would take £36,000,000 making a total of £82,000,000. If you were to remit the £60,000,000 of undistributed profits tax, thus enabling firms to strengthen their position in the competitive field, that would add up to £132,000,000 leaving £18,000,000 to play with to make up my final £150,000,000. Perhaps that could be allotted to reducing the tax on petrol for public transport vehicles.
There are my suggestions, made on my Own, and I maintain that they would lead to a reduction in the cost of living and a great increase of incentives to all classes of the community. I do not suppose for a single instance that anybody will take the slightest notice of them, because unfortunately what I have suggested is not the policy of the Conservative Party. The policy of the Conservative Party, so far as I can understand it from The Right Road for Britain, is by no means that. What I am afraid of is that Conservatives throughout the country think that the coming into power of a Conservative Government will mean a drastic reduction in their taxation. That will be impossible unless, in my submission, the Conservative Party embrace a reversal of policy. It may be said that such a suggestion is reactionary. It is reactionary. When you see a man walking towards a precipice you do not go and push him forward; you rush to drag him back. That, I believe, is absolutely necessary in this matter of economy and taxation.
I am most anxious that there should be no false pretences in this matter. We are always told to speak the naked truth, to "set the people free." That is what I want to do—to set them free to the extent of £600,000,000 to spend their own money instead of having it spent for them by noble Lords opposite and their Party. What I have said this afternoon to your Lordships is my idea of the naked truth in connection with the question of economy and taxation. I do not believe that either Party will adopt it, but I believe it will be forced upon them, as I think either the noble Lord, Lord

455
Cherwell, or the noble Lord, Lord Brand, said, "by other circumstances," or, to use a rather pompous, pedantic phrase, "by the irresistible forces of economic reality." That I believe is the only way in which eventually economy will be achieved. I have stated what I believe to be the truth in this matter. It is for that reason that I have inflicted this speech upon your Lordships.
6.43 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH): My Lords, may I first of all join with the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, who has just sat down, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who was for so long a colleague of mine in another place, and say how much noble Lords on my side of the House, as I am sure in other parts of the House, enjoyed his contribution in his maiden speech. We shall be very glad to hear him again. There is something about his experience and way of life which commends itself to all classes in the community. He has a reserve of knowledge on questions of industry and social progress which I am certain will contribute much of value to our discussions.
In view of the lengthy statement already made by my noble colleague, Lord Pakenham, I do not propose to speak for many minutes this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, made a very long contribution. Sometimes he irritated me and sometimes he made me feel that I should like to indulge in a real half-hour of political fisticuffs. But I do not propose to engage in that to-night. The more I listened to the phrases which were intended to lash, the more I remembered that, after all, there was a time when we were working together for the common safety and endeavouring not to cut Parties to pieces but to do our best in the work of the salvation of our country. Largely, what noble Lords on this side have to do is to justify the work which is being done, under the present representatives of the electorate, to secure salvation from our present economic troubles, just as we needed to be saved from the immediate physical menaces during the period of the war.
I think that the noble Lord who has just sat down has been a good deal more honest in his approach to this subject
456
than often is the case with others. He is to be congratulated on thinking aloud, as he has done. He is obviously speaking entirely without notes, and from a careful study of what he considers the national Budget should be. He has presented it to the House with great sincerity. I believe he is right in what he says about those who agree superficially with Conservative Party propaganda in their treatise—that a great number of them, as he suggests, are inclined to think that if they voted Conservative they would get the kind of special reliefs in taxation that he himself has worked out so meticulously and so cleverly from his own ideas on the subject. That would be a great pity. Of course, what the noble Lord said really comes into line with a comment, very much resented at the time, made by the Prime Minister. Just before the Election, when Mr. Attlee read the short version of The Right Road for Britain, he described it as "a dishonest document." It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, confirms the view which the Prime Minister took on the matter.
However, although we can say that we are entitled to have our own opinions, I do not believe that we can get away from the fact that in all the great international bodies which are considering the economic problems of the world and the things required to be done in order to deal with problems, the general consensus of opinion is that there is no country in the world which has made such an extraordinary contribution to its own recovery and to world recovery as this country has. You can check the reports issued in the E.R.P. publications, 0.E.E.C. publications and the like. I think it can be shown that no country in the world has made a greater contribution than our own, especially when one remembers the handicaps from which we started. It does not help very much when we are subject to the continuous denigration which goes on in newspaper, in speech, in statement and in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed himself to refer to in his Budget Speech as the kind of "gossip" that preceded devaluation last year, which led me to say the things I said at Oxford (of which the noble Lord, Lord Brand complains), about it being one of the factors which led up to devaluation.

457
I am not an economist and I am not a banker. I have not the special outlook of the noble Lord who has such great experience. But, having had some connection with ordinary business, my own view is that the basis upon which you could expect the greatest confidence and growing confidence in an exchange rate would be the extent to which you could ensure from your own people such self-denial of consumption that they could afford to increase their volume of exports. Right through 1948 and up to the beginning of February, 1949, that was the position which was being achieved by the British people under the general direction of the policy of the Government in charge. Then it was that a situation was created—not I think, as was suggested just now by the noble Lord, Lord Brand, from people reading figures which were published, but from actual active propaganda against the position of the British Labour Government—that led to a holding off from the market, a holding off which grew quite naturally from business men in America. Once that starts there is an understandable feeling that if only they hold off a little longer, devaluation is likely to come and then they will be able to replace at a cheaper level their stocks that they use in the meantime. That went on over six months. I do not propose to go more deeply into that question. As I was named by the noble Lord, I wanted merely to make my personal opinion perfectly clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has spoken about how much more labour is required from a Britisher to provide goods which will bring back the same number of dollars. That is a perfectly fair argument to make, although if I went with a small toothcomb through all the statements of Conservatives before devalution I should find a good many people who were saying things which were likely to contribute to the hastening of devaluation. My Lords, the extraordinary thing is that, in spite of this additional handicap of devaluation in putting up the prices of what we have to import in the way of food and raw materials, the achievements in the last eight or nine months of the British people—those leading industry and those who work in industry—in meeting that situation, has been quite remarkable. Instead of having a whole series of criticisms hurled at the Government on this
458
particular point, I think that we are entitled to some credit for the fact that those in industry and commerce are doing so well in this matter.
When I listen to debates of this kind at the present time I always think of my own experience in Sheffield between 1921 and 1926. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, talk about a comparison of rates of increase in productivity in certain years. I should want a very careful study of all the lines of production for each of the years I have mentioned before I accepted the conclusions at which he arrived to-day. If I were dealing with steel in the city which I know so well, I should want a comparison of production in 1920–21. I am speaking from memory, but I think the national production of steel in that year, under the wonderful alternative policy to Socialism, the deflationary policy, was 6,000,000 tons. Under the policy which has been adopted by the Socialist Government—in spite of all the criticisms which are hurled at us about this control and that restriction interfering with production—we have nevertheless raised the production of steel in the first quarter of this year to the equivalent of over 17,000,000 tons a year.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I venture to ask the noble Viscount how much of that is due to the steel masters and the steelmakers, and how much is due to His Majesty's Government?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should say first of all that if the policy adopted in 1945 had been that of the Government of which the noble Viscount was a junior member in 1921—namely, of leaving the industry absolutely free—the possibility of getting what the Government have got to-day would have disappeared.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: As the noble Viscount has challenged me, I will challenge him now to say whether or not the policy of leaving the steel industry free to carry on, whether under broad directives or not, is exactly the policy which the Conservative or National Government introduced. And is it not exactly the policy which the Government are operating to-day, and which I sincerely hope will go on operating, instead of resorting to nationalisation?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: There was, of course, the whole of their deflationary policy, starting with the Geddes Committee.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not talking about the deflationary policy. The noble Viscount said that his Government had introduced some system of dealing with the steel industry. I am asking him whether what he calls the control of steel to-day is not exactly that which was operating before and during the war, and which my Party has said is the right way of operating the partnership—and not nationalisation. I challenge the noble Viscount to say that this is not true.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I would say on that, of course, that the partners in the steel industry are not composed entirely of those who manage. There are a vast body of people working in the industry, from the unskilled labourer to the highly skilled mechanic, whose contribution to the recovery in steel production has been immense and who start off from a feeling of confidence in the Government they have elected. I speak with knowledge in this matter, because I represented that constituency for so long, and there is not a single great steel-producing centre which has not given overwhelming majorities to Labour in the last Election, because they believe in the policy that we are carrying out.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: "Are carrying out"; not "are going to carry out"?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I said "are carrying out."
I now turn to one or two of the specific points that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell mentioned, and I particularly want to say a word or two about his references to the wisdom or otherwise of introducing the petrol tax and the purchase tax upon commercial vehicles. I am sure that he knows, from his study of economic statistics of other countries, that most countries have endeavoured since the war to ensure some economy in the use of petrol by means of increasing the price, and that this commodity still costs very many dollars, even when it is the so-called petrol from the sterling area, because of the arrangements for the distribution of oil in the two areas. Prices in France, Belgium and Italy are still higher than the
460
new price which has arisen as a result of the new tax in the Budget. During the past three or four years the consumption of petrol has been partially restrained in this country by the shortage of vehicles, but owing to the notable increases in vehicle production which have taken place this restraining factor is becoming steadily less powerful.
The rate of the petrol tax had not been increased in this country since before the war, and I therefore think it is fair to argue that this commodity, like so many others, should make an increased contribution to the revenue. It may be, too, that the new tax, coupled with the purchase tax on commercial vehicles, will lead to some saving in the consumption of commercial petrol. This might, in time, make it possible to make it a little better for private motorists; so I do not think there is any very great harm done in that direction. With regard to commercial vehicles, I would say that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, seemed to think that we were trying to do something surreptitiously in favour of the railways. He said that if that was so we should say boldly that we were taxing these people in order to assist the railways. I do not think that is the position at all.
LORD CHERWELL: I do not think I said that. I congratulated the noble Lord on the happy coincidence by which this tax did help the railways, in spite of the fact that it was not planned to do so.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: If anybody connected with the Railway Executive were asked whether he would accept that last statement of the noble Lord, I believe he would largely disagree, because of the extent to which the Railway Executive are themselves interested in road transport. The general increase in the tax upon all oils affected by the duty shows that it would be exceedingly difficult to argue that this tax is going to be of considerable benefit to the railways.
Of course, the amount of investment in the production of such vehicles must be restricted if we are to achieve maximum exports. It is clear that that must be done if we are to maintain a proper balance in the use of such production in our fight

461
for recovery and external economic stability, in the manner to which Lord Brand has referred. At, the beginning of 1949, it was expected that about 50,000 new commercial vehicles would become available on the home market. In fact 100,000 became available. In terms of money, the anticipated expenditure on this item in 1949 was £35,000,000, but the actual expenditure was £72,500,000—more than twice the target. There might perhaps have been some justification for this if the number of commercial vehicles on the road had been demonstrably below our needs. In fact, this has not been so. Before the war there were about 500,000 commercial goods vehicles in the United Kingdom. It is true that by the end of the war this number had fallen somewhat, but by the end of 1949 it had risen to no less than 800,000. The new tax, therefore, is a financial measure designed to strengthen the administrative methods that have been used to restrict this unduly large volume of home market sales.
Some remarks have been made about the use to be made of the revenue which derives from this duty. Without going into detail, I must say that I think it is of great importance to observe that the levying of this duty enables us to bring relief to that section of income tax payers by whom it was most needed. I would especially have said to the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, had he still been in his place, that it is important not to forget the considerable extent to which the reliefs given by the Chancellors of the Exchequer in the last three or four years have brought help to those in the lower ranks of Income tax payers. More than 4,000,000 people who were paying income tax during the war have been so relieved that they do not now pay any tax at all. Many other taxpayers in the lower division referred to by Lord Cherwell—that is those with incomes up to £500 a year—have had their taxes greatly reduced. By reason of this additional sum which is being raised, further relief is being brought to this section of taxpayers, and, because of its general application, it will also bring relief to those who get somewhat more than £500 a year, which was the limit mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell.
LORD CHERWELL: I said: "From £500 a year."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should say that this relief will also be an actual stimulus to production. There has been criticism from time to time in the last two or three years to the effect that where overtime was needed in industry, in order to keep up production and the export drive, the incentive to work overtime was being killed by disinclination on the part of the workers in cases where they had to pay income tax under the P.A.Y.E. system on the extra money which they earned. There will now be a considerable relief in that direction, which will act as a stimulus.
LORD CHERWELL: I am sure that when the noble Viscount reads my speech—if he does read it—he will see that I never complained about reducing this taxation. I am delighted to and him giving such admirable and eloquent support to our view that reducing taxation is a stimulus to production.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER or HILLSBOROUGH: I hope that the noble Lord, in further propaganda efforts, both here and in other places, will give proper credit where it is due, and will make clear to what an extent taxation relief has been brought to the people and how it is a stimulus to production. The noble Lord almost tempts me to say what I had intended to say in more detail on the question of taxation and incentives. But the hour is late and after the long debate which we have had it hardly seems necessary. I would say, however, that there cannot be serious argument against the extent to which this relief has been given in general to what I would call the working end of the income tax-paving community. There is no longer any great deterrent to extra effort by reason of the taxation which is imposed. But there is something else which is contributing enormously to the volume of production which has been attained. I hope that the noble Lord will look upon that production first of all in the light of the figures which my noble friend Lord Pakenham has given concerning the first quarter of the year. When the figures for the whole year are available, different and rather fluctuating positions according to holidays and other periods may no doubt be disclosed, but if the same general tendency reflected in the figures for the first quarter

463
continues right through the year, I think it will be a matter for warm congratulation to all concerned in keeping up this great effort.
Again, there is a tendency to forget another point of considerable importance. It is a fact that occasionally we get most irritating and suddenly projected pieces of what I call industrial insubordination—engendered very often by Communist cells. But people forget that the percentage of time which has been lost under the Labour Government is infinitesimal compared with what was lost during the reconstruction period which followed the war that ended in 1918. I think it would be just as well to mention the comparative figures at this point. The number of days lost in industrial disputes from V.E. Day in May, 1945, to April, 1950—a period of five years—was only 11,000,000. In the corresponding period from November, 1918, to October, 1923, it was no less than 178,250,000 working days. In other words, the comparison shows that less than one-sixteenth of the amount of time lost in the previous period was lost in this later period. That is very largely, of course, due to the general confidence of the working class in the Government which they have elected.
Another matter which I want to stress is the extent to which, in regard to costs of production, the leaders and the members of the great and powerful trade unions have stood behind the general policy of the Government of the country in all these matters. We have, I feel, great reason for satisfaction here. We also know, however, that if we are to achieve a victory in our struggle for complete economic freedom for this country it will not be enough to look to others for aid after 1952. A great deal more yet remains to be done. It will not be possible to achieve success unless we can continue our efforts on the lines which have been outlined to-day to prevent the dire results of inflationary pressure. It will not be done unless all classes in industry contribute of their best in
464
keeping up the drive for further increases in production and increased exports.
I believe that, if the case as to what is being done is fairly stated, the Government are undeserving of the derogatory criticism which we have sometimes heard. The critics are even beginning to forecast the need for further devaluation. That is the forecast which is being made in certain circles—I have heard mention of it myself—in spite of the increasing volume of production and the increasing volume of exports which ought to create increased confidence in the maintenance of the rate of exchange. I believe we shall come through our difficulties successfully. I feel that the Government can appeal to the nation for continued support in these efforts for economic recovery; I think we can justifiably ask employers and workers alike to stand behind that general drive.
One other thing I should say is that I support what my noble friend Lord Pakenham has said in thanking all those who have done so much and sometimes thankless work in maintaining the National Savings Movement. There are people of all Parties in every area who are doing a job in this connection, purely far the public benefit which they hope will accrue. We assure them that it is very necessary to obtain that public benefit. We would thank them and ask all who possibly can to assist us to expand the Savings Movement, because it is certain that unless we can get the proper amount of capital investment we cannot make our recovery secure. If we can get an increase in personal savings, in addition to what we provide for capital investment by taxation, we shall go all the more quickly towards ultimate recovery.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

GERMAN PRISONERS IN RUSSIA
7.12 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER rose to call attention to the report broadcast from Moscow on May 4 to the effect that all German prisoners have now been released from Russia: and to the statement made on May 5 in Bonn by Chancellor Adenauer that 1,500,000 German prisoners of war were still unaccounted for; and to ask His Majesty's Government what steps are being taken in response to Chancellor Adenauer's appeal to the victor Powers to support by all means open to there the German request for an explanation from Russia. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I ask you to turn your attention for a few minutes to a very different but very urgent field. On May 4 the Tass Agency broadcast a statement from Moscow that, except for 13,532 war criminals or persons whose war crime cases were being investigated and 14 sick persons detained temporarily, repatriation of German prisoners of war from the Soviet Union was complete. The total number of those repatriated since capitulation was stated in the same Report to be 1,939,063. This statement, so sudden and so strikingly detailed, was received with consternation by the whole German people, and this consternation found immediate expression in a statement by Chancellor Adenauer at Bonn on May 5, in which he called attention to the difference between this total of some 2,000,000 and the original total of 3,500,000 given in an earlier Tass Report at the time of the capitulation in 1945. He and the whole Assembly spoke of the profound shock with which this claim of total repatriation had been received. The Tass Agency report, Chancellor Adenauer says, "in no way tallies with the facts,", and the fate of 1,500,000 German prisoners of war is in doubt.
It is not easy to determine the exact number, whether alive or dead, but the Tass statement of 1945 is separately confirmed by the Order of Marshal Stalin to the Red Army on the occasion of the German capitulation in 1945, in which he said that 3,300,000 German prisoners of war were in captivity, and by the War News, edited by the Soviet Embassy in London, which at the same time gave the number of German prisoners of war as 3,180,000.
466
It is remarkable that in April, 1947, when the Ministers of Foreign Affairs met in Moscow, M. Molotov stated that the Soviet Union had a total number of 1,894,506 German prisoners of war, and of those, from May, 1945, to April, 1947, 1,003,974 had been already repatriated, leaving 890,532 still in captivity. There is an extraordinary coincidence here. If we look at the Tass statement of May, 1950, and subtract from M. Molotov's number of April, 1947, the number of German prisoners of war released from April, 1947, to May, 1950, we get exactly the number of 13,546 prisoners of war recorded in the Tass statement of May 5, 1950. That is to say, in the whole of that three years' period not a single prisoner of war in the Soviet Union can have died, a perfectly impossible state of affairs when we remember the very high rate of mortality in the Soviet prisoner-of-war camps. Imagine, therefore, the desolation with which innumerable families received the Tass statement. Where are the missing men—1,500,000, or fewer? A great number must be presumed to have died because of the high mortality rate which is found not in the general run bin in most of the camps, partly on account of the feeding. I think there must be very many alive: what has happened to them? I ask as a simple issue of humanity.
The claim of total repatriation is also to be linked up with the wholly new procedure adopted by the Russians regarding war criminals. Until last November, on the whole, sentence was passed on the individual war criminal in respect of a charge on which personal guilt was as a rule, I suppose, established. But in November the Russian courts launched out into group condemnations on a large scale. If a man belonged to an organisation, he is ipso facto condemned. This terrible change horrified those who had already been repatriated to Germany as well as relatives of those who remain. So far as can be established—and I have well-confirmed figures—there were during November and December between 45,000 and 46,000 supposed war criminals condemned and sentenced to between five and twenty-five years' forced labour. After such sentences, it is not likely that all but the 13,532 mentioned in the Tass statement have been released.
I remarked that the announcement was sudden as well as strikingly detailed. Up to May there had been an on-going, steady progress of repatriation, which was suddenly stopped. Yet, according to semi-official reports through Russian sources received at Geneva in the Prisoners-of-War Department of the World Council of Churches, and also in the Evangelical Churches Prisoners-of-War Department at Erlangen in Germany, repatriations were due to extend right through the summer up to September 1, at the rate of two transports a week of 1,000 to 1,500 each. During this month of May alone 60,000 persons were to have been repatriated in these transports. It is extraordinary that the whole on-going process of repatriation should have been so suddenly stopped. The hardship has been increased by the interruption, also in November, of all postal intercourse between German prisoners-of-war in Russia and their families at home.
What is the reason for this extraordinary step by the Russian Soviet authorities? I suppose that partly it is to be in exact line with Molotov's calculation of April, 1947; partly because of the great need of forced labour in Russia —Chancellor Adenauer said that hundreds of thousands of German prisoners-of-war were known to be still held for that purpose; partly also, I suppose, that they might be used as political counters to exert pressure on Western Germany in the current political situation. I am afraid that it is partly, also, because of the cynical desire to dash and raise hopes by turns, to spread terror one day and to offer presents and relief another day, and to do with prisoners-of-war in the mass what Communist agents have long been accustomed to doing with individual political prisoners charged with treason in their prison cells in Moscow, Sofia, Budapest or elsewhere.
The Russians as a people may be careless of human life, but they are not systematically cruel. On the contrary, the ordinary uncorrupted Russian is remarkable for his quality of pity, mercy, charity, as well as faith; and I am not suggesting that the Russian people are responsible for what is now going on. The soul of the true Russia is not to be found in the Kremlin; it is most surely found in religion, in music, in art, or in
468
the great champions of humanity—Tolstoy, Dostoevski, Gorky, and the old poets and story-tellers. The responsibility for the policy followed, and the motives behind it, lie with the Communist rulers, who must be totally distinguished in authority, character and manhood from the millions of ordinary peasants, workers and citizens of every kind under their sway to-day. I should like to add this remark. Now that we know the methods of the Russian Communist State in dealing with prisoners-of-war, does there remain very much justification for continuing to imprison German generals for failing to adhere to Hague regulations, which obviously did not apply to Soviet Russia?
This situation of the missing prisoners-of-war is an affront to the human conscience. Everyone here is glad that the Foreign Ministers on May 12 expressed their surprise and deep concern at what had occurred, and assured the world of their repeated and energetic efforts to secure a change. They agreed to take all possible steps to obtain information—that is the first thing. It would be very satisfactory if in this information the Russian authorities would publish a list of the dead, so that families may know their fate; it would be very good if there were a resumption of postal intercourse; and it would be very good if they would make known the names of those persons sentenced as war criminals, the charges and the punishment. A refusal to give information on such matters as these would give the impression that the Russian authorities had something to conceal.
But far and away the most important matter is the repatriation of those who are left, the release of all prisoners-of-war and internees, women and invalids as well. Be they many or be they few, that is what justice demands. I have no doubt that His Majesty's Government are foremost in their surprise and deep concern, and that they have made, and will repeatedly make, their own and the British attitude abundantly clear to the world. I appeal to the representative of the Government here to say that His Majesty's Government will work in every possible way with the other Governments concerned to secure release and repatriation for all those who can be reached and who survive.
7.27 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, we are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate for calling Parliamentary and public attention to the question of the repatriation to Germany of the German prisoners-of-war from the Soviet Union. I agree that this is a matter of urgency, because five years have passed since the conclusion of hostilities in Europe, and it is one which has aroused, as the right reverend Prelate has said, widespread concern and anxiety. I am sure we all believe that the quality of our civilisation depends, in no small measure, on the maintenance of human rights and the observance of common human standards. It is, unhappily, true that despite international rules, human rights and standards are soon found to be numbered amongst the casualties of war when hostilities occur. That may be inevitable; it is certainly an unfortunate fact.
It is of vital importance, therefore, that as soon as war ends there should be a universal desire and determination that the damage inflicted in this respect should be repaired as speedily as possible. For my own part I can conceive of nothing that is of greater significance in the efforts to build up a new order of peaceful cooperation than the restoration of human rights and the renewal of respect for moral and spiritual values, and I would submit that one practical test of governmental conduct in this matter is to be found in the handling of the problem of the treatment and repatriation of prisoners-of-war.
So far as the Western Allies are concerned, they completed the return to Germany of all German soldiers in their hands by the end of 1948. But it was only in the early part of the present month—that is, over sixteen months later—and after having failed twice to complete the operation by specified dates, that the Soviet Government claimed to have repatriated the last of the German prisoners-of-war from the Soviet Union. That claim, as we all know, has caused consternation and shock in Germany and has produced a feeling of deep misgiving and concern in all free countries. The plain fact is that the Soviet statement is not, and cannot he accepted as, a true statement. It has not won public confidence. On the contrary, it has rightly produced a reaction of mistrust, of suspicion, of challenge. That the Soviet
470
statement cannot be accepted as reliable, that it gives cause for justifiable anxiety, is evident from the fact that a very large number of German families are still awaiting the return of their captured relatives of whom they have had direct news during their captivity in the Soviet Union.
Moreover, there is the testimony of many repatriated prisoners-of-war, that large numbers of former German soldiers and deported civilians have been kept in Russia for forced labour. And as the Foreign Ministers stated in their recent declaration, the Soviet Government have failed to repatriate numerous nationals of German occupied countries who were taken prisoner during the war, as well as more than 300,000 Japanese nationals who still remain unaccounted for in Soviet territory. This represents human tragedy on a large scale, involving not only the prisoners-of-war and deported civilians themselves, bat also the parents, wives and children who are still denied the return of their captured relatives. Only a very callous mind could remain indifferent to it. The declaration of the Foreign Ministers to which I have alluded bears witness to sincere Western sympathy with the Germans in this issue.
That sympathy took a practical form, for the declaration ended by referring to steps, first to obtain more information, and secondly, to bring about repatriation in the largest possible number of cases. Noble Lords will recognise that the first step is an essential preliminary to the second. Instead of working on the basis of misleading or incomplete Russian figures, it will be necessary to approach the problem from the other end—that is, by way of working out details of missing persons from their relatives and friends in Germany and through reports of prisoners still in Russia given by returned prisoners.
As regards steps to bring about repatriation, it would be wrong of me to say anything that might raise false hopes. Noble Lords will, I feel sure, realise that it is too soon after the declaration was made for me to indicate definite decisions. But I want to make it clear that the three Foreign Ministers intend to press this question by all available means, and discussions are now taking place in Germany between the Allied High Commis-

471
sioners, in consultation with representatives of the Federal Government. Having said that, I hope the right reverend Prelate, to whom we are all indebted for his helpful action in raising this matter, will agree that the discussion should be left at this point for the present.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
WISBECH CORPORATION BILL [Hi.]
Reported, with Amendments.
DERBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
GLOUCESTER EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL
MID SOUTHERN UTILITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

NORTHUMBERLAND AND TYNESIDE RIVER BOARD AREA ORDER, 1949.
Reported from the Joint Committee, without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.