Sitting of 28 November 1950

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

    Personal Case
    Mr. Vaughan-Morganasked the Minister of National Insurance why Mrs. C. Brewer, of 35, Somerset Road, Mead-vale, Redhill, Surrey, has been refused an increased widow's pension.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): The immediate ground on which the statutory authorities rejected Mrs. Brewer's application was that it was made some 10 months after the last day fixed for making such applications. I have no powers to interfere with this decision.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Is the Minister aware that this widow was unable to make application earlier owing to ill-health, and that the application was supported by the Ministry's own tribunal?
    Dr. Summerskill: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right in his facts. He must realise that it is necessary for us to fix a period during which applications can be made, and I think that we did everything in our power to make this generally known in the country. Furthermore, if he examines the relevant documents he will find that we have no evidence that Mrs. Brewer was incapacitated on the relevant date in July, 1948. November, 1948, yes; but not July, 1948.

    Contribution Rates
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of National Insurance what is the current surplus of the Unemployment Fund; and what consideration has been given to a readjustment of the rates of contribution.
    Dr. Summerskill: The Unemployment Fund ceased to exist on 5th July, 1948, when the balance of about £544 million was absorbed into the general National Insurance (Reserve) Fund. As from that date all National Insurance contributions have been paid into a common fund. The rates are laid down by the Act, and could only be readjusted as part of a general review of the finances of the scheme.

    Old Age Pensioners
    Mr. Heathcoat Amoryasked the Minister of National Insurance if she will take steps to amend the retirement pensions provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1946, in order to assist elderly people who want to continue half or full-time paid work.
    Dr. Summerskill: The provisions in question were designed to encourage continuance in work beyond minimum pension age: if, however, the hon. Member has a particular proposal in mind, perhaps he will let me know.
    Mr. Amory: Would not the right hon. Lady agree that, without interfering in any way with the rights of people to draw their pensions at the present ages, we must try to think of new ways of encouraging, and providing incentives for, those who wish to continue in work beyond those ages?
    Mr. Blackasked the Minister of National Insurance whether she will raise the amount an old age pensioner is permitted to earn before such earnings affect the pension received, in view of the fall in the value of money since the regulations were made.
    Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), on 2nd May, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. Black: Bearing in mind that the weekly allowance of 26s. fixed in 1946 is now, owing to the fall in the value of the pound, worth only 20s. 8d., does not the Minister think that some concession is due to the old age pensioners?
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of National Insurance the number of men and women in receipt of retirement, contributory and non-contributory old age pensions at the latest convenient date

    919
    and the number in receipt of supplementary assistance, together with comparable figures for a convenient date prior to the latest increase in the scales of the National Assistance Board.
    Dr. Summerskill: At 30th September, 1950, of the 4,620,000 men and women in receipt of retirement, contributory and non-contributory old age pensions it is estimated that nearly 900,000 were in receipt of assistance grants. The comparable figures at 31st March, 1950, were 4,600,000 and 800,000 respectively.
    Mr. Shurmer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if she allowed some of these old age pensioners to put in a little more time and earn a little more money, it would ease the situation for the Assistance Board? This is a sore point at present with many of the old age pensioners, in view of the full employment at the present time.
    Mr. Speaker: A question which suggests its own answer is not really in order.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of National Insurance if she will grant a bonus, at Christmas, of five shillings or other reasonable sum, to old age pensioners in receipt of National Assistance to enable them to share more equitably in the increased foodstuffs made available then.
    Dr. Summerskill: I have no power to do this. National Assistance grants are governed by statutory regulations which provide for regular weekly payments.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend advise us what power the Assistance Board would have to deal with a matter of this nature? Has the Assistance Board no power at all to grant extra supplementation?
    Dr. Summerskill: Not under the regulations, Sir.
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of National Insurance what increase in the weekly National Insurance contribution would be necessary to grant an additional week's old age pension to all old age pensioners, and to those in receipt of National Assistance allowance, respectively, in the week preceding Christmas.
    Dr. Summerskill: National Assistance is not payable out of National Insurance contributions. As regards retirement and old age pensioners, an increase of about one penny in the weekly rates of contributions and an Exchequer contribution of nearly £2 million would be necessary to meet the cost of an additional weekly payment at Christmas.
    Mr. J. N. Browneasked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in view of the rising cost of living, she will widen the discretionary powers of the officers of the National Assistance Board in the granting of special fuel and clothing allowances to old age pensioners.
    Dr. Summerskill: I am informed by the Board that they have no reason to think that the discretionary powers conferred by the current regulations, which are intended to deal with the special circumstances of individual cases, are not wide enough for that purpose.
    Mr. Browne: As the Minister considers that the present powers are wide enough and as the country really does not believe this at all, would the Minister consider making an obligatory payment in the six winter months of 2s. 6d. per week for old age pensioners who need fuel and are living alone? Will she also consider making the allowance for clothing a common need instead of an exceptional need, because clothing really is a common need and these old people are not getting what they require?
    Dr. Summerskill: In the interests of the Exchequer, we should allow officials to exercise their discretion. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want any old age pensioner, irrespective of his means, to be given an allowance for coal. There are old age pensioners in Park Lane, and they probably have plenty of coal. What I have asked the hon. Gentleman to agree is that the right approach is to allow the officials to exercise their discretion.
    Mr. Draysonasked the Minister of National Insurance if she has considered the copy sent to her of the resolution passed by the Lancaster and District Area Council of the Old Age Pensioners' Association in connection with the sum of £100 million that was transferred to the National Insurance Fund in July, 1948; and if she will make a statement.
    Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Member to the very full reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 7th November.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of National Insurance how many old age pensioners are drawing contributory pensions in Coatbridge and Airdrie; how many are receiving supplementary allowances to these pensions; and what is the average supplementary allowance on the single pension of 26s.
    Dr. Summerskill: At the end of September last in the area administered from the board's office at Coatbridge, 1,797 regular weekly grants of National Assistance were being made in supplementation of retirement pensions. I regret that the other information asked for is not available.

    Statistics (West Ham)
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Minister of National Insurance the number of persons in receipt of, and the total amounts paid in: old age pensions, supplementary allowances, family allowances, Unemployment Insurance benefits, National Assistance grants, National Health benefits, nationally and for the county borough of West Ham at the latest convenient date, together with the comparable figures in the week preceding the introduction of the present National Insurance Acts.
    Dr. Summerskill: I regret that the statistics available do not make it possible to give a comprehensive answer to this Question, but I am writing to my hon. Friend more fully about it.

    Tuberculosis (Nurses, Insurance)
    Mr. Somerville Hastingsasked the Minister of National Insurance if she will make a statement about the prescription of tuberculosis for nurses under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act.
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. I have considered the Report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on this subject. I have decided to accept their recommendation that nurses and certain other workers, the nature of whose employment involves close and frequent contact with
    922
    tuberculous infection, should be insured under the Act against disease due to such infection. The necessary regulations will be made as soon as the detailed arrangements have been worked out in consultation with the Health Departments. Copies of the Report will be available at the Vote Office after Questions.
    Mr. Hastings: Will my right hon. Friend do her best to give full publicity to this statement, explaining its exact significance, because it should have a very important effect on the recruiting of nurses for sanatoria?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Mellish: While I thank my right hon. Friend for what she has said, would she not agree that in order to get more nurses into the sanatoria we must remove the fear of infection? Will she point out, particularly to the parents, that where precautions are taken in T.B. sanatoria there is no fear of infection?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point. It is a fact that the precautions which the nurses and other health workers are able to take today are such that the chances of contracting tuberculosis are very small.
    Miss Florence Horsbrugh: Would the right hon. Lady agree that the figures and facts show that fewer nurses have contracted tuberculosis in sanatoria than in practically any other work?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. The right hon. Lady is absolutely correct.

    Fluorosis (Report)
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in view of the information published in the Fluorosis Report, Number 22, by the Medical Research Council, issued by His Majesty's Stationery Office in March, 1949, the Government will now declare fluorosis to be an industrial disease.
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council considered the Report in June, 1949, and advised that, in view of its findings, there would be no justification for prescribing the disease.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will the right hon. Lady agree that on page 68 the Report says:
    "Within each broad age-group there is little doubt that there tends to be an increasing incidence of X-ray abnormalities with increasing length of exposure to fumes"?
    Furthermore, is she aware that, as a result of ill-health, 447 workers left the British Aluminium Company last year—that is, nearly one-third of the workers employed there—after having been there a short time?
    Dr. Summerskill: I have examined the Report and the X-ray pictures very carefully and I recognise that there are certain bony changes, but the noble Lord must realise that I was advised by eminent doctors in this matter and they say that there are no clinical symptoms which would justify the prescription of this disease.

    Widows' Pensions
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Minister of National Insurance if she recognises the great hardship imposed on certain widows of 55 years of age and over who cannot qualify for full pension rights at 60 years of age, unless they contribute 3s. 8d. weekly; and, in view of the great difficulty these widows have in finding employment, if she will review the position and try to alleviate this particular hardship.
    Dr. Summerskill: In a contributory insurance scheme it is inevitable that failure to pay contributions may entail loss of benefit, but my hon. Friend's Question does not enable me to identify the particular cases of hardship she has in mind. Perhaps she will write to me giving particulars.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Industrial Disputes
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Labour what percentage of all industrial disputes since 1945 have taken place in the nationalised industries.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): As all the industries concerned were not nationalised on the same date, the information asked for by the hon. Member is not readily available and could only be obtained by a disproportionate expenditure of time which would not be justified.
    Mr. Braine: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this answer and the answer which he gave to a supplementary question of mine on 14th November with the facts revealed in the Ministry of Labour Gazette that in the current year more than 55 per cent. of all the days lost have occurred in the nationalised industries, which employ nearly a quarter of the labour force?
    Mr. Isaacs: There is nothing inconsistent about it. I was asked to give an answer about what has happened since 1945, but of the nationalised industries two were nationalised in 1946, two in 1947, three in 1948, and one in 1949, and therefore I cannot cover the whole period for all of them.
    Captain Crookshank: Of course the right hon. Gentleman can. I never heard anything so silly.
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Labour the number of days lost through industrial disputes in 1949, giving the percentages for nationalised industries and private industries, respectively.
    Mr. Isaacs: The aggregate number of working days lost in 1949 in stoppages of work arising from industrial disputes was about 1,807,000. About 46 per cent. of this total was lost in stoppages in industries which have been nationalised since 1945 and about 54 per cent. in other industries.
    Mr. Shepherd: In view of the disparity between the numbers employed in nationalised and private industries, is it not perfectly clear that there is much more social dissatisfaction in nationalised industries than in others?
    Mr. Tom Brownasked the Minister of Labour the number of days lost and the average time lost per man per year arising from industrial disputes in the coalmining industry for the five years 1935 to 1939 and 1945 to 1949.
    Mr. Isaacs: For the five years 1935 to 1939 the number of days lost by industrial disputes in the coalmining industry was a yearly average of 996,000 days. For the five years 1945 to 1949 the yearly average was 639,000 days. The average number of days lost per wage-earner per year was about 1¼ days in 1935–39, and slightly less than one day in 1945–49.
    Mr. Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the answer he has given will give the lie direct to the statements made recently that there have been more disputes, and more time lost in the nationalised coal industry than before the coal industry was nationalised?

    Aircraft Firms (Redundant Employees)
    Mr. Donnerasked the Minister of Labour the average number of redundant employees in firms making military planes since January, 1950.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind, but if he will write to me I will see what information is available.
    Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are, and have been throughout the period, pockets of unemployment in aircraft factories? Is not that a remarkable example of the national situation under Socialist planning?
    Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman's Question does not make that clear. I have no evidence of unemployment inside the factories.

    Foundry Workers
    Mr. Monslowasked the Minister of Labour what are the prospects of the implementation of the Garrett Report in connection with foundry workers.
    Mr. Isaacs: Progress in this direction continues, but many of the recommendations are of a long-term nature. I am sending my hon. Friend a more detailed statement by letter.
    Mr. Monslowasked the Minister of Labour if in view of the information available in the publications by his Department of summaries of reports and medical papers on industrial lung diseases in the past 15 or 20 years, he will see his way to facilitate a cheaper edition so that fettlers and moulders in foundries who are now recognised as running a graver industrial risk than was first conceded, could have protective knowledge easily passed on to them.
    Mr. Isaacs: While I doubt whether a summary of the scientific information as to degrees of risk met with by workers in dusty occupations would give them any
    926
    valuable knowledge of practical protective measures, I will consider whether it is possible to do anything in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the McLaughlin Report, which has long been awaited by foundry workers—it has just been issued—and contains information of the greatest importance to them, costs 21s.? That is a case where some of the points might well be published in a cheaper form.
    Mr. Isaacs: That is a rather broader question than that which my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) asked. I will see whether it can be simplified somehow.

    Coal Industry (Manpower)
    Mr. John Tilneyasked the Minister of Labour what is the maximum age at which men are accepted who wish to undertake coalmining.
    Mr. Isaacs: Men who have not had any previous mining experience are unlikely to be accepted over the age of 36. Men who have had previous experience will be accepted up to any reasonable age.
    Mr. Tilney: Is the Minister aware that on Merseyside there are many men of good physique who wish to undertake coalmining, and some of whom are unemployed at present? Would he consider raising this age limit for the benefit of the unemployed on Merseyside and in order to get more coal?
    Mr. Isaacs: I have no information of that kind. If the hon. Gentleman has any information to give me, I will look into it. Certainly we shall not let an arbitrary age limit debar a capable man from going down the mines if he wishes to do so.

    Retail Prices Index
    Mr. Oakshottasked the Minister of Labour if he is now prepared to revise the interim retail prices index.
    Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 23rd November to similar questions by the hon. Members for Louth (Mr. Osborne) and Runcorn (Mr. Vosper).
    Mr. Oakshott: When the Minister considers this matter, will he bear in mind that the weighting of the various groups, for example, food against drink and tobacco, requires reconsideration in view of the abnormal rise above the average in the price of food and a rise well below the average in the prices of drink and tobacco since 1947? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware of the complete disbelief of the public in the working of this system as a cost-of-living index?
    Mr. Isaacs: I appreciate and accept the first part of that supplementary question. All those points must have consideration. I cannot readily accept the suggestion of genuine dissatisfaction—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, I am in touch with as many people as others. May I repeat what I said last week, that this matter is honestly under consideration at the present moment.

    Factories (fluorine Fumes)
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange regular medical examinations for workers employed in factories which discharge fluorine fumes, with a view to ascertaining whether they are suffering injurious effects as a result of their employment in these conditions.
    Mr. Isaacs: This subject has been specially investigated by the Medical Research Council, and I would refer the noble Lord to their Report, which was published last year. I am advised by my Senior Medical Inspector of the Factory Department that full precautions are taken in the factories concerned to protect the workers and that medical supervision on an adequate scale is already in being.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: But is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that the paragraph in the Report to which he referred is really receiving attention, namely, that the progressive course of fluorosis is slow? The paragraph says, furthermore, that the changes in the men who are examined should be regarded as a warning that the conditions under which these men work are such as to call for constant vigilance and a determined effort to reduce the amount of exposure to fluorine fumes?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, and I appreciate the interest of the noble Lord in this matter.
    928
    We will glady examine any further evidence he can send, but the Question was about medical inspection, and I am satisfied that it is adequate.
    Major McCallum: Arising out of the first answer, if there is no danger of gas in these factories, why is it necessary for the Minister's right hon. Friend to bring in the Bill which is now on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Charles Williams: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Government have held up this matter so long when everyone in the district knows that the trouble is going on?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not sure that it is held up, but there is a point on which I am responsible, and on which I am answering, and that is as to whether we are giving adequate inspection.

    Working Hours
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Labour what numbers of the insured population work five days and five and a half days a week respectively, giving separate figures in respect of industrial and clerical workers.
    Mr. Isaacs: I regret that statistics are not available. A normal working week of five days is now prevalent in the great majority of manufacturing industries, and in these industries work on Saturday is in the main limited to the smaller factories in trades such as baking, boot repairing, motor vehicle repairing, which provide direct services to the public. In some other industries and services, such as agriculture, building, transport, gas supply, catering, banks, local government, and the non-industrial Civil Service, the normal working week generally extends over more than five days.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to publicise the fact that we in this country are working longer hours than some people, including those in the United States, give us credit for, and that we have dropped only one hour since the war?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am very glad to hear that supplementary question from the hon. Gentleman. It shows that, in spite of the fact that we have a five-day week, most employers find they get a better result out of a five-day week than out of a five-and-a-half day week.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Coalminers
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Labour if he will now state the number of men from the coalmining industry who have volunteered for service in His Majesty's Forces.
    Mr. Isaacs: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that the number of volunteers from the coalmining industry who have joined the Army during 1950 is 1,455. The corresponding figures for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are not available. I regret that I overlooked the amendment to my hon. Friend's original Question.
    Mr. Fernyhough: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that information, may I ask him to bear in mind the point I raised last week?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, but the difficulty is that if we were to say that a miner was not allowed to join the Army, it would make it possible for him to leave the mines and take any other unessential job, such as that of a hairdresser, for a week, and then join the Army.

    Exemptions
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Minister of Labour how many men have been exempted from National Service on medical grounds each year from 1946 to 1949; and further, the number so exempted to date this year.
    Mr. Isaacs: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will with permission circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the table:

    NUMBER EXEMPTED FROM NATIONAL SERVICE ON MEDICAL GROUNDS*

    Year

    1946

    …

    …

    39,964

    1947

    …

    …

    24,648

    1948

    …

    …

    24,711

    1949

    …

    …

    33,818

    1950 (to 28.9.50)

    …

    …

    34,506

    *Excluding men not examined; for example, the blind and limbless.

  SCOTLAND

    Teachers (Training)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland under what special circumstances a teacher trained
    930
    in an English emergency college can secure a permanent teaching post in Scotland without having to undergo further training in a Scottish college.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): Permanent teaching posts in Scotland can be held only by teachers with Scottish certificated status. All applications for this status are considered on their merits: regard is had to educational qualification and to training and experience. Where these are regarded as approximately equivalent to the educational and professional qualifications demanded from corresponding Scottish teachers, the status is granted without further training.
    Mr. Hamilton: May I take it from that answer that a Scotsman who has trained in England can get a permanent post in Scotland? If that is the case, is my hon. Friend certain that all local authorities in Scotland are aware of that?
    Miss Herbison: Applications for certificated status must be made to provincial committees, who hand them on to our Department with a recommendation. Certain teachers who have been trained in England are now on the permanent staff in Scotland, but each case is examined on its merits.

    Electricity Schemes (Sale of Power)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what basis electric power is sold from Scottish hydro-electric schemes to the grid; and whether any such current has yet been sold from the Loch Sloy scheme.
    Miss Herbison: The electricity which the British Electricity Authority are bound to buy from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is, unless otherwise agreed, paid for in accordance with rules laid down in the relevant Acts. The British Electricity Authority may also buy additional supplies at an agreed price. The electricity at present being supplied to the British Electricity Authority, including that being supplied from the Loch Sloy scheme, is being sold on terms agreed between the parties.
    Colonel Hutchison: Since the answer of the hon. Lady does not give me much information, will she explain how it arose

    931
    that for some few days recently there was power available at Loch Sloy which was not accepted by the British Electricity Authority? Can she tell us that is now settled?
    Miss Herbison: I understand that a settlement has been reached between the British Electricity Authority and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board on the matter raised by the hon. and gallant Member. May I add that I have given quite clearly the answer to the Question which he put on the Order Paper.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Is the Minister aware that, despite transmission charges, the electricity authority can still buy at 15 per cent. less from the Hydro-Electric Board, and will she impress upon the Minister of Fuel and Power not to quibble over the price of electricity charged by the Hydro-Electric Board, as the country has an obligation to distribute electricity to the rural areas throughout the Highlands?
    Mr. Speaker: That is another question altogether.
    Miss Herbison: That is not a question in which the Minister of Fuel and Power interferes. It is arranged between the Hydro-Electric Board and the British Electricity Authority.

    Tuberculosis
    Mr. William Reidasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of cases of pulmonary tuberculosis notified in the City of Glasgow in the years 1939 and 1949.
    Miss Herbison: There were 1,574 cases in 1939 and 2,829 cases in 1949.
    Mr. Reid: While thanking my hon. Friend for her reply, may I ask whether she is aware that the tuberculosis rate in Glasgow is worse than in any comparable city in the United Kingdom, and will she consider the advisability of instituting a crisis expansion of the tuberculosis services in that city?
    Miss Herbison: It is true that the tuberculosis rate in Glasgow is very high, but my hon. Friend will be glad to know that in 1950 we expect notifications of the disease to be 10 per cent. fewer than
    932
    in 1949 and the mortality rate to be 20 per cent. less. I assure my hon. Friend that many steps have been taken that could be called "crisis" steps.
    Mr. Gerald Williams: As a first step, will the Secretary of State consider sending these people for treatment to Switzerland, where nurses, beds and treatment are readily available at a cost of only 30s. more than in this country?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a wider question entirely. The original Question asked only the total number of cases.
    Sir David Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that 5.6 persons per thousand of the population of Caithness are suffering from tuberculosis, and that the latest figures indicate that the disease is increasing in Caithness; and what special steps he is taking to deal with this matter.
    Miss Herbison: The position in Caithness is more favourable than in Scotland as a whole. The total number of cases notified in the county is fewer than 50 a year, with no marked trend in either direction over the last five years. My right hon. Friend has approved proposals by the county council for offering B.C.G. vaccination to tuberculosis contacts, and Caithness will of course benefit from the steps now being taken to intensify and expand the measures to deal with tuberculosis in Scotland generally.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is the hon. Lady aware that I have in my possession a letter from the Medical Officer of Health for Caithness, supported by all the other doctors, stating that they are most anxious about the situation and that many more than 50 people are awaiting admission, but that there are only 10 beds in the whole of the county and that doctors will not put people on to the lists because to do so would simply be a farce when there is no chance of their obtaining admission?
    Mr. G. Williams: Why not send them to Switzerland?
    Miss Herbison: My information is that at present 10 patients are awaiting admission to hospital in the area to which the hon. Member refers. If he has any additional information, I shall be glad to have it.
    Sir D. Robertson: If there are only 10 beds in the county, obviously it is useless for doctors to put down additional names for whom there would be no hope of gaining admission.

    Houses, Keiss
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will ensure that Mrs. Wilson, of Keiss, Caithness, a widow, her nine children, one grandchild and her brother, who are living in two rooms and a loft, which are damp and unfit for human habitation, receive the housing priority provided for under Section 47 (2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935; and if he will ensure that one of the Caithness County Council houses now nearing completion in Keiss will be allocated to this family.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): The selection of tenants for these houses is a matter for the county council. I am making inquiries about this case however, and I will let the hon. Member know the result.
    Sir D. Robertson: As this Question has been on the Order Paper for several days, why is the Joint Under-Secretary not able to give the House a proper answer instead of saying simply that he is making inquiries? [Interruption.] What is the use of having St. Andrew's House in Edinburgh and the Scottish Office in London, with teleprinters and telephones, and then to tell the House five or six days after a Question is put down that no answer is available?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot understand the hon. Member. We are making inquiries because of his having put the Question down. I think that he runs the risk of abusing the Parliamentary privilege of asking Questions on local authorities by seeking to convert the Chamber into the "selection of tenants" committee.
    Sir D. Robertson: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Sir, to the unwarrantable and unjustifiable remarks—
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

    White Fish Industry (Subsidy)
    Mr. Duthieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he proposes to do about the continuance of the subsidy
    934
    to certain classes of catchers of white fish pending the passage of the legislation promised for the setting up of the authority to regulate and develop the white fish industry.
    Mr. T. Fraser: This matter is under examination.
    Mr. Duthie: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the proposed legislation is likely to be introduced?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot say at present.

    Building Materials
    Mr. William Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an assurance that the necessary basic materials are available to support the local authority housing allocations; and if he can estimate the extent to which shortage of bricks and cement in 1950 have delayed the completion of houses in Scotland.
    Mr. T. Fraser: We are doing all we can to ensure that materials are available as required. As regards the second part of the Question, I am afraid it is impossible to give any such estimate.
    Mr. Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware that at a special meeting of Edinburgh Town Council last week to consider housing, the statement was made that there was a daily deficiency on three sites of about 6,000 bricks and a weekly deficiency of about 4 tons of cement, and will my hon. Friend comment on this state of affairs?
    Mr. Fraser: I am not able to comment on the statements to which my hon. Friend refers. It is true that for a period this year there was a real shortage of those two materials and also of timber, but the House will have appreciated, as a result of a discussion we had the other week, that the figures of recent completions in Scotland are rather in excess of anticipations earlier in the year, despite the difficulties with materials some months ago.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Minister look into this question of the present shortage rather than something which happened a few weeks ago?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes. Sir; I will.
    Captain Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the shortage of bricks is not confined to Edinburgh?
    Mr. Fraser

    Hill Sheep Subsidy
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he persists in refusing a hill sheep subsidy to Mr. W. S. Murray, Crofter, Corrish, Lairg, whose application went astray in the post, as such arbitrary action must restrict the increased food production which the nation requires and which the Hill Sheep Act was designed to encourage.
    Mr. T. Fraser: While I have considerable sympathy with this man, I can find no circumstances in this case which would justify my right hon. Friend in excepting it from the ruling which is applied impartially to all who fail to submit such applications by the statutory closing date. In this case no application was in fact received.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the fact that application was made and was lost in the post, and why should this intolerable rigidity be put upon a closing date? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nothing like this ever applies in the commercial and banking worlds, where days of grace are always allowed, and supposing 200 crofters were late in applying—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not start a supplementary question by "supposing 200 crofters" or something of that sort. That is going beyond the original Question and is hypothetical.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not distressing that these crofters, who may not be good clerks or even good timekeepers, should be penalised in this way?
    Mr. Fraser: I should be very surprised to think that if the hon. Member wrote to Littlewood's saying that he had posted his coupon last Thursday and that his forecast was all correct, he would get his dividend in due course. I somewhat regret that the name of the individual concerned in this Question should have been brought forward, but it so happens that this crofter claims that in 1948, as in this year, applications which he submitted did not reach St. Andrew's House.
    Commander Galbraith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government should be different from Little-wood's?
    Mr. Fraser: It is, of course.

    Seaman, Bridgeton (Death)
    Mr. McGovernasked the Lord Advocate whether an arrest has been made in the case of the Indian seaman, Mr. Toslian Khan, who was found lying outside a hostel in Greenhead Street, Bridgeton, Glasgow, on 27th April, 1949, with his head and face battered and who died a few hours later.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): No, Sir. Following upon a full investigation into the circumstances of the death of Mr. Toslim Khan, the case was considered by my Department. There was no evidence to warrant criminal proceedings, and instructions were issued accordingly.
    Mr. McGovern: Is it not the case that this death was regarded as a murder?
    The Lord Advocate: No, Sir.
    Mr. McGovern: Can my right hon. and learned Friend be more explicit and tell us what was the conclusion in regard to this case?
    The Lord Advocate: It is not usual for explanations to be given about the exercise of the discretion of Crown Counsel in these cases, but in the particular circumstances I am prepared to tell the House that the conclusion reached was that this death was an accident.
    Mr. McGovern—
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot go on with this. We have had three questions already.
    Mr. McGovern: On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter again.
    The Lord Advocate: Further to that point of order. Could we have a ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether it is proper for a Member to raise as a point of order the unsatisfactory nature of a reply when the reply given was a direct answer to the question which was asked?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot judge that. That must rest with the hon. Member himself. What may appear to one hon. Member to be a satisfactory reply may be unsatisfactory to someone else. I cannot rule on that as a point of order.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

    Disability Pensions
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will discontinue the practice, where a pensions appeal tribunal decides that an individual's disability is attributable to service in the Armed Forces, to pay pension only from the date of the appeal and not from the date when the disability led to the discharge of the individual from the Forces.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons): Under the present rules a man who has succeeded in his appeal to a pensions appeal tribunal in respect of his invaliding disability is awarded pension from the date of his discharge from the Forces provided his representations to the Ministry regarding their failure to award him a pension were made within six months following his discharge; otherwise pension is normally paid from the date on which the first representations were made. My right hon. Friend does not consider that there are any grounds for altering these rules.
    Mr. Low: If I bring to the hon. Gentleman's notice a particular case, will he reconsider the matter from the rule point of view?
    Mr. Simmons: Certainly.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Pensions how many disability pensions are granted to ex-Service men on the ground that their disability was only aggravated by war service; and what proportion of these men were passed as Al on going into the Forces.
    Mr. Simmons: During the year ended 30th September, 1950, 4,567 first awards of disability pension were granted to ex-Service men on the ground that their disabilities were only aggravated by service. As regards the second part of the
    938
    Question, I regret that precise information is not available and that it could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: It Service men are passed into the Army completely fit medically, how can they ultimately be awarded a disability pension on the ground that any disability is only aggravated by war service?
    Mr. Simmons: In the large majority of these aggravated cases there is other reliable evidence to show that a disability existed, either before enlistment, or following military service, or that it was not due to service. When we bear in mind the probable and possible causes of these diseases, irrespective of service, the fact that we accept them as attributable in 70 per cent. of the cases, shows that we are very generously interpreting the Royal Warrant. But I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that there is a right of appeal to the pensions appeal tribunal against the Minister's decision that the disability is not attributable to service.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is my hon. Friend aware that under present legislation in these cases the man gets his pension and the onus of proof against his application lies with the Minister? Is he also aware that to obtain that legislation many years of agitation were required in this House and the legislation was strenuously resisted by every previous Tory administration?

    Personal Case
    Mr. Irvingasked the Minister of Pensions when the invalid chair sanctioned by him on 29th June to Mr. L. Harper, 48 Seymour Avenue, Tottenham, is likely to be delivered.
    Mr. Simmons: I am glad to inform the hon. Member that the chair has been despatched to Mr. Harper and should be delivered in a day or so.

    Statistics (West Ham)
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Minister of Pensions the number of persons in receipt of pensions from his Department, and the total amounts drawn at the last convenient date, showing the comparable figures at the first week in July, 1945, both nationally and for those recipients resident in the county borough of West Ham.
    Mr. Simmons: The number of pensions in payment by my Department was 980,000 on 1st July, 1945, and 1,028,000 on 1st October, 1950; the annual values of the pensions and allowances in payment on these dates were respectively £61,830,000 and £74,880,000. I regret that the corresponding figures for those pensioners resident in the county borough of West Ham are not available.

    Poles (Pensions)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Pensions whether there is a special committee for deciding awards of pension to ex-members of the Polish Armed Forces; and what is its composition.
    Mr. Simmons: No, Sir. Awards of pensions to such persons are made by my right hon. Friend in the ordinary way, under the provisions of the Pensions (Polish Forces) Scheme, which came into force in 1947.
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Pensions how many ex-members of the Polish Armed Forces or Polish Resettlement Corps and widows of such men are now in receipt of pensions; and what is the total annual cost.
    Mr. Simmons: On 30th September, 1950, 5,800 disabled ex-members of the Polish Forces or Resettlement Corps, 360 widows and 270 dependants were in receipt of pensions, the total annual value being £475,000.
    Mr. Hynd: Are precautions taken to ensure that those members of the Polish Resettlement Corps who joined the Corps at the end of hostilities do not qualify for pension?
    Mr. Simmons: These claims are for men who served under British command.

    WOMEN'S ROYAL ARMY CORPS (UNIFORMS)
    Mr. John Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for War when the Women's Royal Army Corps will be completely re-equipped with their new uniforms.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): I hope that issues of No. 1 dress to the Women's Royal Army Corps will be completed by the end of 1951 or, at latest, by early in 1952.
    Mr Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the new uniform is very much more becoming than the old?

    CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (SPEAKERS)
    Major Hicks-Beachasked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that Major H. Hunter, a speaker from the Central Office of Information, expressed controversial political opinions at a conference in Cheltenham; and if he will take steps to ensure that Central Office of Information speakers do not undertake political propaganda on behalf of the Government.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has had inquiries made. There is no evidence to support the suggestion that this lecturer expressed controversial political opinions. In reply to the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's Question, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the present precautions are adequate.
    Major Hicks-Beach: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my information comes from the "Co-operative News," and I shall be happy to send him a copy?

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Statutory Instrument No. 1184
    Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of S.I., 1950, No. 1184, having been made with retrospective purport without statutory sanction, he is satisfied that the instructions to Departments, contained in Treasury Circular F. 18924, of 21st June, 1946, paragraph 10, have been duly observed.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): Yes, Sir.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the Chancellor reconcile the statutory instrument with the circular which instructed Departments to see that subordinate legislation is not made with retrospective effect unless there is clear authority so to make it under the Act under which it is made?
    Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. Friend informs me that he has been advised that his action in making this Order under the Foreign Settlements Act is perfectly in order.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is it proposed to amend the Treasury circular?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I have already explained that there was Treasury sanction

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Donnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the rising prices of goods and the consequential automatic increase in Purchase Tax levied upon these, he will limit the rate of such tax to the value of the goods concerned at the time when they became liable to tax.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Under the law Purchase Tax is chargeable on the wholesale value at the time when the tax in respect of any particular consignment of goods becomes due. Apart from other considerations, it would not be practicable to assess value on the basis that the hon. Member apparently has in mind.
    Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when Purchase Tax was introduced, Parliament never envisaged the rise in prices which has taken place and that, as a result of the high incidence of this tax, the revenue, for example, on piece goods, has been halved this year?
    Mr. Gaitskell: This is an ad valorem duty and, like other ad valorem duties, revenue increases when the taxes go up and decreases when they go down.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the tax continues on the present level, it will not be long before it has a very adverse effect on our export trade?
    Mr. Willsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the cost of post or carriage between wholesaler and retailer is added to the price of goods before the amount of Purchase Tax is calculated; and whether he will ensure that the price on which the percentage tax is calculated is the wholesale price only.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Under the law postal or other delivery charges have to be included when computing the value of goods
    942
    for Purchase Tax. This provision was included in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, because it was represented that most goods chargeable with the tax were sold on delivered terms and assessment on any other basis would have caused practical difficulties for the great majority of traders. I am advised that these considerations still apply.
    Mr. Wills: Does the Chancellor realise that this does mean there is an arbitrary addition to prices in different parts of the country which bears rather more hardly on people who live in remote districts and, incidentally, adds to the cost of living?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I appreciate that that may be the case in remote districts, but, as the hon. Member will see, there are great practical difficulties in taking any other course.
    Mr. Braineasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why certain items of protective equipment and clothing which employers are compelled to purchase for their employees are not subject to Purchase Tax while others, such as heavy foundry mitts, are subject to Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Gaitskell: With the exception of miners', quarrymen's and moulders' protective boots and miners' and quarrymen's protective helmets, which were exempted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, with the special object of encouraging their use, no non-utility protective clothing and equipment is specifically exempted from tax. Exemptions of this kind lead to discrimination between one kind of worker and another and it has for this reason been decided not to extend them. A general exemption for all protective clothing is unfortunately quite impracticable.
    Mr. Braine: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer really mean that the Government are prepared to give to a nationalised industry concessions which they are not prepared to give to private employers?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No. Sir. It means exactly what it says, namely, that it was considered desirable in 1940, by the then Government, to encourage the use of this particular protection.
    Captain Crookshank: When the Chancellor says it is quite impracticable, does he mean because of difficulties about identification or because of the cost?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Because of the difficulties about identification.
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he estimates that the increase in the yield of Purchase Tax during the current financial year is the result of the rise in price of goods subject to that tax.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The revenue from Purchase Tax amounted to approximately £292 million in 1949–50. Allowing for the changes introduced in the Finance Act, including in particular the application of Purchase Tax to commercial vehicles' chassis, the estimated yield for 1950–51 is £300 million. So far receipts are broadly in line with expectation.
    The yield from Purchase Tax is, of course, affected by many other factors, including changes in the quantities of goods paying tax, as well as by changes in price, and it is therefore quite impossible to identify the effects of the latter alone.
    Mr. Fraser: Is not it important that, when the House has almost no control over the imposition of Purchase Tax, because it is not debated during the Budget debates, some formula should be discovered for stopping the proportional increases which amount almost to proportional misrepresentation of the will of the House?
    Mr. Gaitskell: There is no evidence, in the first place, that there has been a substantial increase of revenue from Purchase Tax on this account. As I explained earlier, this is precisely the same as with any ad valorem duty.

    Diplomatic Corps (Motor Cars)
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his regulations enable members of the British Diplomatic Corps serving abroad to purchase British cars for their own use free of Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. Members of the Diplomatic Corps serving abroad are in the same position in this matter as any other British citizen living abroad.
    Mr. Taylor: In view of that, will the Chancellor do his best to discourage individuals serving with the Diplomatic Corps from using American cars?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am not aware that they are using American cars to any extent, but, if the hon. Member will give the figures, I will look into them.

    Economic Situation (Information)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the statement contained in paragraph 30 of Command Paper No. 7572 to the effect that the difficulties of the present economic position do not present themselves in an obvious form to the British public, what fresh steps he proposes to take to remedy this situation.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The statement to which the hon. Member refers was made in a Command Paper issued nearly two years ago. The hon. Member will no doubt recall that it was also stated in the two succeeding paragraphs of this Paper that the policy of His Majesty's Government was to give the people of this country at all times the fullest information about the economic position and to impress upon them the need for a high level of production. That is still our policy.
    Mr. Osborne: Would the Chancellor agree that the economic position today is as grave as it was two years ago when this warning was issued? If he agrees, does he not think that further steps should be taken to bring its gravity home to our people?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I have an impression that the speech I made on Sunday did not exactly lack frankness.

    Egyptian Sterling Balances
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the total of the sterling balances outstanding to the Egyptian Government at the end of the Japanese war:
    (2) the total amount of sterling balances released to the Egyptian Government since the end of the Japanese war to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I will, with the permission of the hon. and gallant Member, answer these two Questions together.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: On a point of order. These two Questions are very different. May I have a separate answer to each of them?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I will give the answer, and when the hon. and gallant Member has heard it, he will perhaps tell me whether he wishes me to repeat it.
    As the House is aware, it is not our practice to disclose details of our sterling liabilities to individual countries. It has, however, been brought to my notice that figures of Egypt's sterling balances, which appear to have been secured from the National Bank of Egypt, have recently been published in the Press. These figures show that Egypt's total sterling balances on 31st December. 1945. amounted to £387 million, that between 31st December, 1947, and 30th September, 1950, her blocked balances fell by £81.8 million, and that her total balances on the latter date amounted to £272.2 million.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In thanking the Chancellor for that answer, may I ask him whether the fall he has mentioned in the sterling balances is entirely accounted for by the relaxations from those balances made under the Anglo-Egyptian financial agreements, or whether the balances have been drawn on from any other source whatever?
    Mr. Gaitskell: They have been made under the agreements with the Egyptian Government.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say how much, if any, of the released balances were used in the purchase of tanks and jet aircraft?
    Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question.
    Mr. Low: Will the Chancellor explain why it was he felt completely unable to give a similar answer to my similar Question yesterday?
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. When a Minister gives an answer, showing that certain moneys have been released, it is surely not irrelevant in those circumstances to ask what they were used for?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question on the Order Paper was a simple one about how much money has been released. If the
    946
    hon. Member wishes to do so, he can put down a Question asking how the money has been spent.
    Mr. Gaitskell: If I may reply to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), I would say that I was not aware of the Press release when the other Question was answered. I felt that in the circumstances we had better change our mind.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that no further releases will be made by His Majesty's Government of sterling balances to the Egyptian Government until counter-claims have been entered by this country for services rendered by this country to Egypt during the recent war.
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of the present attitude of the Egyptian Government, is the Chancellor still not willing to implement the policy of His Majesty's Government to enter these counter-claims? Surely this is the time to do it, in view of the statement by the Egyptian Government that they wish to reach a final settlement of these balances? What other opportunities has the right hon. Gentleman to do so?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am about to begin negotiations on these balances, and I should prefer not to have my hands tied in advance by making any statement of that kind.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Surely His Majesty's Government's hands are tied. The Government have said that they will enter these counter-claims. Does the Chancellor now mean to implement the policy of the Government?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot accept that it has ever been our policy to put in counterclaims.
    Hon. Members: What?

    Income Tax Forms
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now reconsidered the proposal that Income Tax forms should show the yield of each tax per £ of revenue, and the way in which each £ of revenue is spent.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. Arrangements have been made to include this information in summarised form in the notes which accompany Income Tax return forms.
    Mr. Keeling: In acknowledging this act of repentance, may I ask whether the Treasury will give the Press at the time of the Budget both the figures and the proposed diagrams, with their attractive piles of pennies of different heights?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir.

    Foreign Goods (Repairs, United Kingdom)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now announce any relaxation of the procedure in respect of articles sent from abroad for repair.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Relaxations in the Customs procedure for articles sent from abroad for repair and re-exportation have recently been introduced as an experimental measure.
    Mr. Keeling: Does the Chancellor agree that this useful contribution to the balance of trade ought to be encouraged, even at the risk of some very slight loss of revenue?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I prefer to see how this experiment works out before committing myself to anything further.

    C.O.I. (Housing Document)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the issue of "Talking Points," July-August, 1950, by the Speaker's Information Section, Central Office of Information, on the subject of housing, contains politically controversial matter; and whether he will take steps to prevent the issue of further political propaganda financed by public funds.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The subject of housing was chosen by the Women's Organisation Committee for Economic Information on which are represented the leading national women's voluntary organisations. I cannot agree that the treatment was other than factual and non-controversial, and the second part of the Question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this document,
    948
    paid for by public funds, and to be used by speakers who are paid from public funds, there is a statement that the high cost and low output of houses today as compared with pre-war is due to the inefficiency of the building industry? Is he aware that quite a number of people in this country think that the Minister of Health has something to with it?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member is entitled to his opinions, but there is nothing in this document which he has quoted which shows that it is in any way biased.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Has the Chancellor read this document, and if he has done so, how can he fail to perceive that it contains political matter on a political question? The case for the Government is stated in the document, and it is fair that the case for the Opposition should be given.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I have read the document. I do not agree that it is in any way impartial. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Nicholson: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having once more demonstrated that the truth will out?
    Earl Winterton: In order that the controversy may be ended in the best possible way, will the Chancellor have a copy of this document placed in the Library so that he and the other Members of the House may have an opportunity of reading it?
    Mr. Gaitskell

    Companies' Headquarters (Transfer Overseas)
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in view of the loss to the revenue which will be involved, he has given permission to the five mining companies in the Anglo-American Corporation group to transfer their seat of control from London to Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Because a sufficiently good case was made out on grounds of efficiency.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies have during the past year been granted permission to move their

    949
    headquarters from this country; what is the capital value of these companies; and what is the estimated loss of tax revenue on the basis of their last declared profits.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Eighteen companies. The actual capital value is not readily ascertainable, but the total issued capital is about £29 million. As regards the last part of the Question, no precise estimate can be made.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can my right hon. Friend give any figures to show how many applications were either granted or rejected on the grounds of efficiency, the interests of the companies concerned, or the wide national interests involved; and how is he to make up the loss of revenue caused by this flight of capital?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I should like to see the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Donner: Is the Chancellor aware that these companies have been driven to do what they have done by overtaxation?

Retirement Pensions (Taxation)
Mr. Fortasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant tax reliefs for schemes set up by private firms to provide pensions at a fixed age instead of limiting the schemes as at present to schemes providing pensions on retirement.
Mr. Gaitskell: I am not quite clear what the hon. Member has in mind and perhaps he will send me details of his proposal. Any general change in the law would fall within the scope of the committee which has been appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. J. Millard Tucker, K.C., to consider the taxation treatment of pensions for retirement.

Motor Vehicles (Taxation)
Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the loss in revenue to the Treasury in a full year of applying the £10 per annum flat rate of horse-power tax to all private motor cars, to include those first licensed prior to 1st January, 1947; and how many such motor cars would be re-rated if this alteration were made.
Mr. Gaitskell: No later estimate of the loss in a full year can yet be made than the figure of £6 million which was given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in a reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on 15th June last. If this alteration were made, it is estimated that 1,202,000 cars would be re-rated.
Mr. Nabarro: Does the Chancellor realise that the continuing stringency in respect of new cars during 1951 will place an added financial burden on owners of pre-1947 vehicles? In those circumstances will he give urgent and earnest reconsideration to the question of the standardisation of the £10 tax?
Mr. Gaitskell: This question has often been considered in the past. I consider that the arguments for retaining the present system are very strong.

ASIA (COMMONWEALTH ECONOMIC PLAN)
Mr. Gaitskell: I should, with permission, like to inform the House that the Report of the Commonwealth Consultative Committee on the Colombo Plan for Co-operative Economic Development in South and South-East Asia has been presented to Parliament today. In addition, a popular version has been prepared, entitled "New Horizons in the East," which is illustrated with photographs, maps and charts. This booklet, prepared by the United Kingdom at the request of the other Commonwealth countries, is also published today, price 1s., and will be generally available by tomorrow morning.
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will support this great and imaginative programme for economic development in South and South-East Asia to the full extent that our resources permit. To begin with, there is the technical co-operation scheme which must be the foundation of so much of that development. We shall give that scheme our support both in finance, in respect of which we have already promised a contribution of up to £2,800,000 over its three-year period, and in helping to the best of our ability to find the men.
Towards the actual execution of the plan itself we are prepared to contribute

951
in a variety of ways. First we shall stand behind the British Protected and Colonial territories taking part in the plan to the full extent that external finance is required for their programmes as finally agreed between the territories and ourselves. Again, we readily accept the principle that the other Commonwealth countries in the area should be able to make a substantial call upon the United Kingdom economy in carrying out the plan through drawing down their accumulated sterling balances. A great deal of detailed discussion with the individual countries concerned will of course need to take place before final arrangements with each country can be made, but I can tell the House that these discussions have already been carried some distance and I hope to be able to make an announcement on this subject in the near future. Furthermore, we shall consider sympathetically the position of those non-Commonwealth countries in the area which decide to participate in the plan.
The plan is as yet in its early stages and I am therefore not in a position to give a detailed analysis of the nature and extent of contribution from the United Kingdom economy. But we recognise the great importance of firm commitments to countries engaged upon six-year development programmes of this sort and are taking full account of this in planning our own co-operation. We estimate that during the period 1951–57 our contribution, including the repayment of sterling balances, may amount to well over £300 million. I am sure the House will join with me in wishing every success to this important enterprise.
Mr. Eden: I should like to endorse the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and to say a special word of thanks to the Australian Government, whose original initiative I think it was to put forward this plan at the Colombo Conference.
Mr. A. Edward Davies: I welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend, and should like to ask him whether an early opportunity will be given for the House to consider this scheme and for us to supplement it with our contributions?
Mr. Gaitskell: That is a matter for the Leader of the House.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not this only one-tenth of the amount of money to be spent on rearmament?
Mr. Osborne: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly? Did he say that this would cost £300 million over the next seven years? Does that mean that the money will come out of the economy of the United Kingdom and, if so, will he make it perfectly clear to the nation that, if we are to fulfil this obligation, we shall have to produce that much extra or our standard of living will go down?
Mr. Gaitskell: Three hundred million pounds will be about our contribution, including the repayment of sterling balances over that period. While, of course, the repayment of sterling balances does not raise special fiscal problems with us, nevertheless it involves a burden upon the economy. I have repeatedly made it clear to the House that we have to earn a surplus in our balance of payments in order to meet obligations of this kind.
Mr. Shepherd: As apparently the American Government are contemplating a measure not unlike this, is there any machinery for joint discussion on the issue?
Mr. Gaitskell: The American Government have been kept informed. The Report will be published, and we shall await their opinion.
Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this sum is in addition to commitments we have already entered into under the Colonial Development Act?
Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. It would include such commitments.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any decision has been reached in principle as to the ultimate ownership of any enterprises initiated under this scheme; and, in particular, whether the precedent which has been set up in African countries—as, for example, with the Gezira scheme in the Sudan—that the scheme shall pass to the Governments of the people, is endorsed by the Government?
Mr. Gaitskell: Those will be matters for the Governments of the territories concerned.
Mr. Eden: Does this document show what proportion of this money is money which otherwise would have been spent from the Colonial Development Fund; what proportion is what I would call "new money"; and what proportion is the repayment of sterling balances?
Mr. Gaitskell: It would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would put a question like that on the Order Paper and I could then give the House the full information.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend indicate whether the schemes to be initiated and developed under this plan will come under any form of joint administration representative of the various Governments which are responsible for introducing the schemes?
Mr. Gaitskell: I ask my hon. Friend to read the Report on that matter, though it is a question which is not fully decided yet.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this document shows any distribution of the expenditure on agriculture and industry respectively?
Mr. Gaitskell: Yes. Full information of that kind is available in the Report.

POOL BETTING (ACCOUNTS)
Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make compulsory the regular publication of accounts and information by persons promoting pool betting; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
The principle behind this Bill is to make compulsory the regular publication of information and accounts by persons who promote pool betting. There are, it is estimated, about 7¾ million people in this country who fill in football pools every Thursday or Friday, and the total number of people who engage in one form or another is 14 million. The total sum staked annually is well over £50 million. There is no question, therefore, that this is an established and popular pastime. The courts have held that the filling in of football pools is not engaging in a lottery, and, therefore, this is a perfectly legal occupation. In view of the
954
sums involved and the numbers of people engaged in football pools, it is only right and proper that the fullest information should be made available as to the financial arrangements involved.
All the companies concerned are exempt from the obligation to publish their accounts, because they are all either exempt private companies or private partnerships. There is no public company engaged in this business. Totalisator betting on horse racecourses is already amply controlled by the provisions of the Race Course Betting Control Act, 1928, and totalisator betting on greyhound racing is covered by the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934. As to the comparable activities of football pools, there is no similar provision. It is in the interests both of the participants and of all concerned with the good repute of the business to put this matter right.
In the Bill which I propose to introduce, the following principles will be established. First, that the pool promoters should be obliged to publish briefly on the back of their coupons information about similar pools promoted by them for some previous agreed relevant period. This information would give, in respect of each individual pool, say, the pool for the three weeks before—and all this will be left to the discretion of the Home Secretary in regulations under the Bill—figures showing the exact amount subscribed, how much was deducted for taxation, commission and expenses, how much was distributed and by what dividends.
Secondly, that the promoters of these pool betting schemes should publish every year an annual report giving the complete accounts and information on the money subscribed, expended and distributed, and that these accounts should be duly certified by an independent qualified accountant to be appointed by the Home Secretary or under regulations approved by him. Thirdly, and this is all, that these accountants should then have access to and a right of inspection of all the necessary books and accounts so as to verify the accounts which have been submitted. I hope that this House will give leave to introduce the Bill.
Mrs. Braddock: My interest in this matter is purely a constituency one. The biggest pool in

955
the country has its head offices in my constituency. I have no other interest at all, because I would not know how to start to fill up a coupon for a football pool if I tried.
The point I want to put is this. At the moment, the Royal Commission appointed by the Government to look into the whole question of gambling law as it stands at present has been spending a lot of time making inquiries, taking verbal and written evidence, and I understand that its task is almost completed. I understand that very shortly it will be making a report on what alterations there should be relating to the law of gambling in all its aspects.
I think that the suggestion contained in this Bill is, in some little way, a slight on the Commission in relation to this matter. The evidence that has been taken from them has been given freely by the Pool Promoters' Association, who, I understand, are prepared to help in any way and are not complaining about the arrangements made to put forward their point of view. It is appreciated, I think, all over the country that the fact that there have been alterations of a small character in the betting regulations has caused the law itself to be brought very much into disrepute, and it was because
956
of the fact that it was necessary to look into this matter further, that the Royal Commission was set up.
I think it would be very much more use to the country as a whole if we were to wait for the Report from the Royal Commission to find out exactly what are its recommendations, which could then be the subject of a general discussion in this House, when everybody would be able to put a particular point of view in the light of the recommendations suggested by the Commission. For that reason, I hope the House will not give leave to introduce the Bill, as I consider that it would be a slight on the Royal Commission.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Lang, Brigadier Clarke, Mr. Hopkin Morris, Mr. Garner-Evans, Mr. Nally, Mr. Gunter, and Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing.

POOL BETTING (ACCOUNTS) BILL
"to make compulsory the regular publication of accounts, and information by persons promoting pool betting; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st December, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUNDAY OPENING) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUNDAY OPENING) BILL

    Clause 1.—(SUNDAY OPENING OF EXHIBITIONS AND GARDENS.)
    3.47 p.m.
    The Chairman: It may be of advantage to the Committee if I say that I propose to call first the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), and, in the event of the Committee not agreeing to that Amendment, then to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), in page 1, line 10, to leave out "with or." In order to avoid repetition as much as possible, I would invite hon. Members, in the main and as far as they can, to deal more particularly with the question of the Festival Pleasure Gardens on the first Amendment, so as to keep the issues distinct and not have all these arguments repeated in relation to the amusement park in the event of the second Amendment being called. I hope that is clear.
    Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out lines 9 to 11.
    There are two other Amendments on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of some of my hon. Friends, but they are entirely consequential. I quite appreciate the point you have made, Major Milner, about trying to avoid undue repetition.
    My Amendment covers what I might call the whole of the area in Battersea Park which has been allotted to the Festival, not only the amusement park, but also what is known as the Festival Pleasure Gardens. I have observed that a circular had been addressed to all hon. Members by Sir Henry French, the Chairman of the rather curious limited company which runs this Festival. I think the shareholders are the Treasury and the London County Council, and it appears to be a nationalised enterprise, because we cannot ask questions about what it is doing, because the Lord President of the Council is not responsible for its activities.
    The Lord President is only a part shareholder in this connection, with the
    958
    Treasury and the London County Council, so he is well and truly protected, and it becomes one of those nationalised industries outside any democratic control whatsoever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I do not understand why hon. Members should say, "Get on with it." Mine was a perfectly pertinent observation. I always notice that when I or my hon. Friends make a good point which the other side do not like, they try to push us off it. I always think that when I get jeers from the other side, I should repeat what I have said, so far as the Chair will allow.
    I live on the other side of the river and, as I had not been in Battersea Park recently, I thought I should like to have another look at it. I went on Sunday afternoon, which was unfortunately, a foggy day. But the Lord's Day Observance Act does not prohibit admission to a public park on Sunday afternoon, and most hon. Members do not seem to have appreciated that point. When I got there it was foggy, but, with some difficulty, I managed to get into the part of the park affected. There were many people at work in the park and there was a gentleman who wanted to stop me approaching the part of the park concerned. He held his hand up and went through all the motions of prohibition, but I induced him to let me in, when I told him that I proposed to speak today. He directed me to the clerk of works, who was missing. I saw a lot of vehicles in the fog and an infinite quantity of mud. One foreman, who said he had lived all his life in Battersea, said the way they had spoilt the flowers in Battersea Park was an absolute shame.
    I was one of, I think, 128 who voted against the Second Reading of this Bill. There was a large majority in favour of the Second Reading, of course, but the graver controversy relates to the amusement park, and the Amendments in my name, and in the names of other hon. Members are consequential upon the fact that the Bill had a Second Reading. What I do not understand is why a Government Department, or a Government-sponsored show, should have privileges compared with other shows on Sunday, whatever they may be. I have not the slightest doubt that there may be a very good case for a Bill to be introduced to overhaul the Lord's Day Observance Act, but I

    959
    see no reason whatsoever why a Government-sponsored show should be put in an exceptional position compared with others.
    Mr. Douglas Houghton: Does the hon. Member not distinguish between a national festival and a private enterprise amusement park?
    Sir H. Williams: I see no difference at all. I see no real reason why the Government should break any of the Ten Commandments any more than anybody else. On that principle one could commit any crime one liked, provided one did it in the name of the State. That is a philosophical doctrine I am not prepared to accept. The particular law with which we are dealing is very ancient. It goes back to the earliest Parliamentary draftsman. I think his name was Moses, and he was a very good Parliamentary draftsman, because his are the only laws which have never been amended.
    We must realise that what I might call the Old Testament interpretation of the Fourth Commandment, and the New Testament interpretation are fundamentally different. The Old Testament attitude was much more rigid than the attitude taken in the New Testament and by people belonging to various Christian sects. Most of us read newspapers on Monday, though they were printed on Sunday, We turn the wireless on, and use electricity, gas and water, buses and trains, all of which involve Sunday labour. We have our letters delivered on Monday, and that involves people sorting them on Sunday. Our present attitude towards Sunday—and Sunday is not quite the same thing as the Sabbath—is very different from that which prevailed in the Old Testament days, and we all recognise that.
    What most of us are concerned about is that, so far as we possibly can, we should only involve people in the minimum of Sunday work. We recognise in steelmaking and in certain chemical work, for instance, activity which has to have a continuous process. We accept, quite frankly, that it is incidental to our modern civilisation. On the other hand, most of us take the view that we should keep Sunday work down as much as possible. I am one of those who have consistently opposed excessive hours of labour.
    960
    During the war, I had the privilege of being chairman of a sub-committee of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. My colleagues were the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Irene Ward), the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), who was recently Secretary of State for Scotland, and others not now in the House. We sponsored a document in which we deplored the excessive hours being worked at certain stages of the war, largely as a result of the impulse of the Lord President of the Council in exhorting people to "go to it." We realise the adverse effect on production of excessive hours of work and, as a small employer, I have always had that in mind. The Commandment, incidentally, says, "Six days shalt thou labour." That is not merely negative, and I think we shall have to come to six days, before long, if we are to save this nation from disaster.
    I hope I do not approach this problem in a narrow-minded way at all. I supported the opening of cinemas on Sunday, because I thought that here was a case where we could provide entertainment for a great number of people with the minimum of Sunday labour. It so happened that I had 600 letters from people in my constituency opposing Sunday opening and only two in favour. Nevertheless, I voted in favour, and my town was the first to have a ballot on the subject. Yet, when we had the ballot, I found that the people of Croydon, by two to one, agreed with my point of view. Therefore, I am not too much embarrassed by a bombardment of protests from societies.
    4.0 p.m.
    I think the Lord's Day Observance Society is a thorough nuisance. I have written two protests to them about the letters I have had through their activity, and they have not had the courtesy to answer them up to now. Neither am I embarrassed by selected quotations from the Scriptures because, as we all know, one can prove anything by selected quotation. I read on Sunday night St. Paul's First Epistle to Timothy. When I have a little time I shall read a little more about Timothy, because he is given advice on the qualifications possessed by bishops. In Chapter 3, verse 2, he says:

    961
    "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach."
    According to St. Paul, a bishop must be the husband of one wife. That seems to let out all the rest of us. I once tried this out on a bishop, and he could not quite get round it. If one says that a certain class of the community shall have only one wife, it rather indicates that one approves of polygamy for those who are not going to be bishops. I mention this as part of my protest against letters containing selected quotations from the Scriptures. That is not the way to arrive at a conclusion.
    If I were running the fun fair I should arrange that, as a great many ships conveying coal pass Battersea, two piers would be erected from one of which we could ship British coal abroad and at the other we could unload American coal coming into this country. That is a new thought for the Lord President to consider. I have many friends in the entertainment industry. [Laughter.] I do not know why that remark should be treated with derision. I have generally found myself supporting theatrical and cinema people and amusement caterers, but on this occasion I am against them.
    I am told that they fear that they will suffer great loss if the amusements park is not open on Sundays. That is a fair consideration for them to put forward. I hope that during this debate the Lord President will tell us definitely whether when these amusement caterers signed their contracts they signed on the basis of a six-day week or a seven-day week. I wish the Lord President would give me his attention. I know that he is probably getting tired of advice, but I am putting a specific point to him. He prefers to give advice, but many of us are wise enough not to take it.
    One of the amusement caterers told me. We shall lose a lot of money if we cannot open on Sundays. It is a very good day in the week." I want to ask this specific question: when these amusement caterers signed their agreement with Festival Gardens Limited was it on the basis of a six- or seven-day week? That raises very important issues. Was it originally contemplated that this place should be opened on Sundays? I should like to know whether the purport of this Bill is to remove doubts or to legalise
    962
    something which was not contemplated when the whole idea was first sponsored. I think that is a legitimate and proper question to address to the Attorney-General and the Lord President who at the moment are so busy advising each other. Surely, they should know by now what they have got to reply to.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shaweross): I am lending at least one ear to the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir H. Williams: The right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be schizophrenic he has got a split brain and is able to hear me through one ear and the Lord President through the other. If he is not careful he will become one of the exhibits in the museum.
    What is clear is this. The legalised opening by the State of a fun fair on Sundays is going to annoy a large number of decent citizens. There is no doubt about that, and I wonder whether we are wise to offend great numbers of some of the best and most reputable citizens in this country. There are very few people who, if they wish to go to the amusements park, will not have opportunities to go on the other days of the week during six months in the year. I know that the Labour Party have a bad record in this matter. They think that no one can go to a political meeting except on Sunday. I find that when I speak in the Civic Hall at Croydon on a week day I get a larger audience than the Attorney-General does when he visits that place on a Sunday. I suggest that there are other reasons for this, but I am not so impolite as to suggest them now.
    When I was in Battersea Park on Sunday I saw a lot of concrete posts. I asked what they were for, and I was told that they were for the scenic railway. Sir Henry French used to be a civil servant, but he has now entered into controversy and he will have to take what is coming to him. In the letter which he addressed to us he said that no noise would be heard even by the people in Chelsea, and they are 300 yards away. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) will be able to tell us about that. A scenic railway is not one of the quiestest things in the world, and when Sir Henry French says that nobody will be able

    963
    to hear the scenic railway on Sunday from the nearest house which is 300 yards away, I do not believe it. I do not think he believes it himself. I do not think he even knows, which is more important.
    Here is an issue which has caused great anxiety among great masses of respectable people. My Amendment proposes to shut down the Festival Pleasure Gardens on Sundays. I think it is deplorable that a public park designed for people who live in that district should be invaded at all. I do not see why the people of Battersea should be called upon to pay 2s. to enter what they regard as their park. I cannot argue against that now, because the last Parliament decided that that should be done, but I think it is monstrous, and if the Festival Gardens are going to be open at all, they ought to be open free to all the local residents. As the workman said to me on Sunday, he was horrified by the destruction of the flower beds which he used to have pleasure in seeing before the Festival Gardens were thought of.
    Perhaps the Committee will decide to carry my Amendment, or the reverse may happen. If my Amendment is defeated, then another Amendment will be proposed which will be limited to the amusements park alone. I hope I have succeeded in giving substantial reasons for upholding it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think so. Certain people with less understanding do not think so; that is the only point of difference. If the majority of the Committee think that I am right in my arguments, in due course when we have a Division, I shall have a majority on my side. On the other hand, if I am in the minority I shall naturally support with very great pleasure the Amendment which I believe is to be proposed by the hon. Member Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas).
    Mr. Thurtle: The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has been very amusing, but I hope he will forgive me if I am rather more solemn. I am taking this matter seriously. I regard the House of Commons as a citadel of freedom, and we often speak of ourselves as freedom-loving people. It is from that point of view that I want to discuss this issue, and I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I do
    964
    not follow the trend of his speech. No doubt it was infused with deep religious feeling.
    "We know what we are, but, know not what we may he."
    I have known the hon. Member a long time, and I wondered where his great energy and self-confidence would lead him. Never in all my imaginings have I conceived of him emerging as a great leader of Puritanism, as a sort of "Obadiah Bind-'em-in-chains." I would warn my hon. Friends, some of whom are thinking of following him, that after they have done so, they will marvel that they have followed such a leader.
    We expect to spend our Sundays as we please. I think this sort of issue is essentially a personal one, depending upon our personal convictions, and, if we are to follow our personal convictions, we need freedom of choice. It is on behalf of that freedom of choice that I speak this afternoon. I think it is not seeking very much to ask that a British citizen should have the right to decide whether or not he shall go to these Pleasure Gardens and to the amusements on a Sunday.
    There are others who take the opposite view. Most of them do so, I imagine, as does the hon. Member for Croydon, East, from deep religious convictions. I ask them to remember the great fundamental belief of those convictions, which is what we call the golden rule—"Do unto others as you would wish they should do unto you." They themselves expect to enjoy complete freedom of religious beliefs and practices, and I think they should be prepared, on the basis of the golden rule, to concede that right to other people so that they also may make their own choice. That is all we ask.
    Last week I had the pleasure of listening to a very interesting speech by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). I have no doubt that it was a very sincere speech and, in the course of it, the right hon. Gentleman said he trusted that all would vote according to the prickings of their conscience. He also said:
    "The mistake of the churches today is that they forget that religion is a personal matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November. 1950; Vol. 481. c. 550.]
    I thought that was very well said and I remarked to myself, "Here is a broad-

    965
    minded, tolerant churchman expounding the golden rule of doing unto others as he would wish them to do unto him."
    Alas, I discovered later, listening to him very carefully, that the right hon. Gentleman was only a qualified believer in the golden rule, so that when it came to deciding whether John Citizen should have the right to choose for himself whether, or not to go to the amusements park of the Festival Gardens the right hon. Gentleman said. "No; if I cannot persuade him not to attend this place I will invoke the law so as to deny him the opportunity." That seemed rather disappointing. The right hon. Gentleman was only a true believer in liberty when he felt that that liberty fitted in with his own views. I therefore withdrew from him a considerable measure of my admiration.
    In this country we all enjoy complete liberty in regard to religion. We can practise or adhere to any religion we choose, or we can have no religion at all. That is one of our very great freedoms. It is intellectual freedom. There are wide differences between us as a result of this freedom, as we recognise, for they are all due to the free operation of the human mind, which is the core of all liberty—the freedom of the mind to think as it likes and, in a way, to act as it likes. That, I suppose, is why we call ourselves a freedom-loving nation.
    4.15 p.m.
    I am much more mellow than I used to be and I do not want to say anything at all spiteful in this debate. I would point out to hon. Members, however, that there has been a great falling off in church attendance. That is a hard fact. I make no great point of it, but it is a fact which ought to be borne in mind because, whether one likes it or not, it indicates a great shift of opinion on the question of Sunday observance. We have all sorts of different habits on a Sunday. If people do not want amusements at all they are not compelled to take part in them. If they prefer any particular sort of amusements they can indulge in them and all we ask is for consideration for those people who have not the opportunities to indulge in the sort of amusement they prefer, or who have not the facilities like those possessed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who generously admitted that he
    966
    had some very pleasant alternatives to attending an amusement festival.
    Many hon. Members enjoy such alternatives, and I submit that it is unfair that they should deny opportunities of enjoyment to other people who are not so fortunately placed and who want this kind of amusement. All we ask is that people should be given this opportunity. To the strict Sabbatarian I would say that he should reciprocate our toleration. We let the strict Sabbatarians do what they please and, by way of tolerance, by way of the golden rule, they should let us do what we like. If they do not do so, I think they are guilty of a narrow intolerance. The hon. Member for Croydon, East, did not develop this theme very much, but there has been an argument advanced that Sunday is a divine day and ought not to be used for secular purposes at all. We know that that is not a practical contention today.
    Even on that argument, there is no historical basis for saying that our Christian Sunday is a day of divine derivation. I am not an expert on this subject and others know more about it than I do, but if hon. Members look at the history of our Christian Sunday they will find that there is a much stronger case for saying that the Jewish Sabbath, the Saturday, has divine inspiration than for making that claim on behalf of our Christian Sunday. I could quote authorities like one of the early Christian Fathers, Justin, who openly derided this idea that Sunday has divine inspiration. A famous Bishop in the 17th century said some scathing things about the idea that Sunday was divinely inspired.
    I turn now to the attitude of the Nonconformists, because they constitute a very strong force in the Anti-Sunday-Liberty campaign. It is very disappointing that the Nonconformists should adopt this attitude. I should have thought they would be tolerant and generous towards people who want Sunday freedom, for they were persecuted in the past because of their views. One would expect them to feel very strongly within themselves the urge to permit liberty.
    Let us, for instance, consider the Baptists. I do not know whether there are any Baptists in the House but, if there are. I warn them that I am about to recount something which may harrow their feelings. This happened in the 17th

    967
    century—in 1661 to be precise. There was a Baptist Minister in London who felt strongly that the Sabbatarian observance was much too rigid. He wanted more, freedom. He spoke in favour of it. What happened to this poor Baptist Minister? He was hanged, he was drawn, he was quartered; his heart was taken out and burnt separately; his four quarters were stuck on the city gates; and the poor man's head was stuck on a pole outside his chapel in Stepney.
    Mr. Mellish: Was he dead?
    Mr. Thurtle: He suffered the fate of a martyr. There have been many who have suffered that fate in this country. What I want to point out is that today many of his fellow religionists, instead of being eager for liberty, fairness and tolerance, are now linked up with the ranks of the people who are intolerant.
    Mr. Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
    Mr. Thurtle: I think I had better proceed.
    Mr. Osborne Mr. Osborne rose—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): If the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor does not give way another hon. Gentleman may not speak.
    Mr. Osborne: On a point of order. The hon. Member gave way to me.
    Mr. Thurtle: No, I did not really. There is the question of the individual's behaviour, which I mentioned just now. Some of you like to spend your Sundays in one way and some in another. I do not mind that at all. I rejoice in your freedom to do that if you want to. What I think is wrong is to deny to other people, as some of you appear to be doing, or to be about to try to do—to deny to other people the right to spend their Sundays as they like.
    Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: On a point of Order, Sir Charles. Are you not in the singular?
    Mr. Wyatt: That remark is nearly as good as the speech the hon. Member made last week.
    Mr. Thurtle: I am sorry if I fell into a technical error. If the hon. Gentleman likes to think much of it, well and good.
    968
    People have their own ways of spending Sunday. Some spend it one way and some another, but those people who try to stop others from doing that which they themselves do not want to do seem to me to be in the position of the man who tries to
    "Compound for sins he is inclined to

    By damning those he has no mind to."

    So are those who damn the Festival, and the roundabouts and the other little simple amusements—who damn those things on a Sunday because they themselves would not use them on a Sunday. I am broadminded, but I do feel that it is important for the individual that we should remember that if we are willing to allow others to spend their Sundays in the way they want, then we are perfectly entitled to spend Sundays in the way we want.
    Mr. Arthur Colegate Mr. Arthur Colegate (Burton) rose—
    Mr. Thurtle: I cannot give way now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Toleration."] I want to say something about the Lord's Day Observance Society. I am astonished—I am a mild-mannered man, but I am astonished—at the arrogance of this society. They take an extraordinary attitude. They take the extraordinary attitude that if any Sunday liberty is conferred on other people they are robbed of it. Listen to their language:
    "We cannot and will not surrender our great privilege for any consideration whatever, on this matter at least. We mean to hold fast that which we have—the Day of Rest."
    The real meaning of that is that they do not want any Sunday freedom themselves and are determined that, by hook or by crook, other people who want it shall not have it. I submit that that is an absurd, dog-in-the-manger attitude for those people to take up. What we are asking of the Sabbatarians is this. We do not ask them to surrender anything. We say to them, "Retain all your liberties. Campaign as much as you like to persuade people not to do on Sundays what you think they ought not to do. Spend any amount of money. Do what you like. But do, at least, give other people the right to spend Sunday in the way they want."
    One last point. It has a lot to do with many of our international difficulties. When we talk about totalitarian States we say they believe in coercion whereas

    969
    we believe in liberty. They put people in cells, and they do this, that and the other thing. We believe in persuasion—in getting people to agree by means of argument. That is what this question here really comes to. We proclaim ourselves a freedom-loving people. We ought to be prepared to try to persuade people by argument not to go to amusement parks on Sundays if we do not want them to go, but we ought not to coerce them by law. As long as we are not in favour of persuasion we are siding with repressive totalitarian ideas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rot."] There is no rot about it at all.
    The opponents of this official opening on Sunday are not content to try to persuade people against it and to let them decide for themselves. They seek to invoke the law, and, if necessary, to invoke prison. That is what they are doing. I think that that is something quite un-British and undemocratic. It is quite intolerant. This is a personal issue. It is a matter for everybody himself to consider. To seek by law in this way to stop people spending Sunday as they like, is to do it in an unworthy, un-British fashion, and I hope that the Committee on one of the first contentious votes we have to record in this new House, is not going to disgrace itself by voting in an intolerant way for this proposal to deny people the right to Sunday amusements. I hope the Committee will record a vote worthy of the traditions of the House of Commons.
    Wing Commander Bullus: I have put my name to this Amendment, but I confess that it is with a certain amount of diffidence that I speak, because, undoubtedly, on this occasion each Member must think and vote for himself. I would presume to place my opinions before the Committee, but I do not seek to influence the vote.
    I am persuaded to make two brief points. I presume to think that my attitude is shared by a large number on both sides of this Chamber. I think that the inter-denominational committee headed by the Dean of Westminster has given really reasonable and sound advice. They have not sought to be strict Sabbatarians. They have been reasonable and have suggested that the Festival might be opened on a Sunday; but they do oppose
    970
    the Sunday opening of the fun fair; and I am bound to confess that I am influenced in my vote by that very wise decision.
    Mr. Summers: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman make it clear whether he is in favour not only of closing, the amusements park for the reasons he has just given but the Gardens as well, which is the effect of this Amendment, but not of the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff. West (Mr. G. Thomas).
    4.30 p.m.
    Wing Commander Bullus: I do not think that is a very big issue. I think that the main issue is the closing or other wise of the fun fair. We have it on record that if the fun fair is closed it would not be possible to open the Gardens. We are speaking ostensibly about the closing of the fun fair.
    The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the Bill he will see that this is an Amendment to leave out the words from "or" to "amusements" inclusive, and covers "the Festival Pleasure Gardens, with or without the amusements."
    Mr. York: On that point, may I have your guidance, Sir Charles? It has been suggested by the Chairman that we should have a general discussion and that there should not be a repetition of arguments on each Amendment. Could we know whether or not we are to discuss on this Amendment, the simple Amendment involved in it, and then later, on to discuss the fun fair.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Chairman of Ways and Means was only expressing, a pious hope. This Amendment covers the Festival Pleasure Gardens, with or without the amusements, and unless hon. Members confine themselves voluntarily, it will be quite impossible for me to, control them.
    Sir H. Williams: My Amendment covers the whole point, and if my Amendment is carried, the Gardens and the amusements are closed. I, therefore, contend that any reference to the amusements must be in order.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is what I was trying to say, but I understood there

    971
    was a difference of opinion whether this Amendment covered certain parts and not the whole thing.
    Sir H. Williams: It covers the lot.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I know, and I thought the hon. Gentleman who intervened did not understand the position.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I wonder, Sir Charles, if you would make it clear, for the guidance of a good many of us, whether those of us who desire to direct our observations solely to the question of closing the fun fair will prejudice our opportunity to do so by not speaking on this Amendment but reserving our observations for an Amendment to be moved later.
    The Deputy-Chairman: They will not be prejudicing themselves, but if this Amendment is carried, they must realise that the other will fall.
    Wing Commander Bullus: I am still speaking on the Amendment to which I put my name. I was developing my argument in my own way. I regret the interruptions, but I am very clear in my own mind and am sorry if I have not made myself clear to the Committee, because I feel very strongly on this matter.
    I want briefly to refer to a remark made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang), to whose contributions to our debates I always listen with interest. I know of his great sincerity when speaking on this subject. He has said, in effect. "I shall not visit the fun fair but I want other people to choose for themselves." I suggest that that is the wrong attitude. I, by my vote, will not make facilities for the opening of a fun fair. The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Thurtle) said that we were by law trying to prevent the opening of this fun fair. I suggest that that is not so, but that the sponsors of Sunday opening are trying to legalise what is at present wrong. That is the point which I wish to make: I have made up my own mind. I do not wish to speak for others, but I do not intend to facilitate the opening of a fun fair on Sunday, and I shall vote accordingly.
    Mr. S. N. Evans: Many will feel themselves in the same dilemma as myself. I do not want this Amendment
    972
    carried, but if it is, all our arguments for or against the fun fair will fall to the ground. Therefore, one is virtually compelled to get into the argument at this stage. What we must keep in mind is what this Festival is designed to do. I suggest that the visitors from overseas will see not only a panorama of past achievements, but also the pulsating evidence that a nation knocked sideways by two world wars is once more on the march. That is very important. Secondly, the foreigner will get an insight into those qualities of heart and mind which make up the character of our great people.
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Have the hon. Gentleman's remarks any relation to this Amendment? Is he not rather making a Second Reading speech?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member can rely upon me to control speakers.
    Mr. Evans: I was saying that the foreigner coming from overseas will be interested in the character of this people whose record over the past few years has been so remarkable. Therefore, this question of a fun fair in connection with a national exhibition is of great importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Thurtle) spoke of the Nonconformist and anti-liberty Sunday. As everybody knows, I am a bit of a Nonconformist, but I am not for an anti-liberty Sunday. I am for an antilicence Sunday, and as this is a national exhibition depicting Britain and not the Tottenham Court Road, I suggest that "Dodgem" cars, "tip-'em-out-of-beds," the fat lady with hair on her chest and the rest of it, would not give a fair picture of Great Britain.
    With respect to the Metropolis whose guest I am for a large part of the year, I say that the real Briton is to be found in the Black Country, in the mining valleys of South Wales, in Lancashire and Yorkshire. In those parts of the country the Sabbath is used for the purpose of Sunday school, of choirs, lessons and classes. If this fun fair proposal were gone on with, it would dismay and distress millions of people whose Christianity is much more real than apparent. It must not be assumed, as so many do, somewhat facilely, that all the people who do not go to church are not interested in this subject. Millions of people who

    973
    do not go to church still have profound Christian convictions, and they would be dismayed' if this business of the "Dodgem" cars on Sunday afternoons is proceeded with.
    I am told that in Battersea there are 33 Sunday schools. What are we going to do about it? It is quite ridiculous to argue on the hypothesis that a fair ground can be put on pneumatic tyres. It cannot. Half the charm of the fair ground is the raucous boisterous earthy, noisy gaity, the competition of the barkers, and the hurdy-gurdies attached to the roundabouts. I love it, but not on a Sunday afternoon. This fair ground, if it is to cater for all who will want to see it, will inevitably have to be the biggest thing of its kind in the world. Indeed, I have read lately that 100 amusement caterers met in a London hotel to ballot for pitches—an appropriate way to settle the matter, but 100 amusement caterers bringing their resources together into Battersea Park will inevitably create a lot of noise.
    I, therefore, ask: What are we going to do about these Sunday schools? Are we going to evacuate the children, as we did during the war, or are we going to close the Sunday schools for the duration of the Festival? This is a very important matter, because it is going to be very difficult to teach children the Lord's Prayer in competition with "Somebody stole my girl." Those who want to bring about this innovation in our national life must think of these things. Let us get this clear.
    Mrs. Corbet: The hon. Member has gone rather beyond the point on which I wished to interrupt him, but I should like him to explain why it should be necessary to evacuate children in order that they may be able to attend Sunday school. Is he suggesting that the teachers of the Sunday schools are running this fair?
    Mr. Evans: I was suggesting that the noise given off by this fair ground would interfere with the teaching at the Sunday schools.
    Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Member aware, firstly, that there will be no amplification at all used at this fun fair, and, secondly, that there is no Sunday school within half a mile of the site?
    Mr. Evans: I know all about fun fairs. There cannot be a fair ground without noise—a whole stream of it. No one is going to persuade me that there can be a fun fair without noise. Therefore, I do not accept that argument.
    Mr. A. R. W. Low: The hon. Gentleman has put a point about noise. Has he ever, from his own personal experience, been 300 yards away from the centre of one of the many fun fairs that open on Sundays, for example, those in Margate and other places, and tested whether at that distance he can or cannot hear such noises as we are talking about now?
    Mr. Evans: A good fair worthy of the name, like Barnum's, can be heard a mile away, especially on a Sunday afternoon when there is no competing traffic [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Certainly not; there is virtually no competing traffic.
    Let me get to this further point. What the House is really arguing about this afternoon is whether these "Dodgem" cars, "Tip-'em-out-of-bed," and the like, are going to become a permanent feature of Britain's Sunday afternoons. I cannot concede that a fair of this kind is justifiable under Government auspices in order that financially the Festival may be more nearly self-supporting. We cannot do that and then, at the end of the Festival, say "No more of these things, there is no longer a financial necessity; we will reject the continuance of these things on ethical grounds." We cannot do that, so let us get this matter straight.
    What we are arguing about today is whether this tremendous innovation is to become a permanent feature of our British Sunday afternoon. For myself, I am not going to stand for it. This is part of a continuing trend. This is not giving liberty, but licence. I deprecate the wood-pecking which is going on at all these institutions which have built up the British character.
    4.45 p.m.
    I say further that the great social conscience of Greece and Rome was not founded on circuses. It was founded by philosophers who had time to think. I would say that the modern trend of production—gee-up, gee-up—is such that the need for time to think is greater today

    975
    than ever before. I cannot believe that anyone voting for this fun fair being opened on Sunday afternoons can really have given to this very important subject all the thought that it should have. This would be an innovation in our national life.
    Mr. Bing: Would the hon. Member be in favour of closing the Bellevue gardens in Manchester, which are open on a Sunday?
    Mr. Evans: According to the Attorney-General, all the Sunday Observance Acts are to be examined.
    The Attorney-General: I thought that the hon. Member's observation was really an answer to the point put to him by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). I made no such pledge on behalf of the Government. I expressed my own view about this branch of the law; that is all.
    Mr. Evans: I do not want to get into an argument with the Attorney-General. The impression which I got last week was that all Sunday activities of an unusual character were going to be examined, if we supplied the time.
    In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch, I would say this: In the first place, there is all the difference between something set up and carried on by a private undertaking in a private capacity and something which is initiated by the Government in an attempt to depict our national life. We are presenting a record of achievement over a century, and putting forward our hopes and aspirations of cultural and technical achievements over the next century. I cannot accept that the introduction of Bellevue, Manchester, or South Shore, Blackpool to London will present a balanced picture of the Great Britain that I know.
    I have said that people have to have time to think. This country is going to have a very grim struggle over the next few years. I take a very poor view of this constant whittling away of those practices and institutions which I believe have helped to build the British character. I think that is a most important thing. The nation's character is something of slow growth and ours has been something like 500 years growing. I am alarmed
    976
    at the readiness that there would appear to be in some quarters to bring about an innovation of a kind which I would regard as detrimental to our future. People should have time to think of the great problems that concern this country and have time to think out the solutions to those problems. These things cannot fructify in the atmosphere of dodgem cars, pin tables and the like. Such things are a contradiction in terms.
    Therefore, I say that this Festival, designed as it is to present a picture of Great Britain as she is in 1950 and to be a shop-window, showing the whole world our technical and cultural achievements as well as our character, would be harmed by the opening of this fun fair on a Sunday afternoon. If such a thing were to be opened it would, as was said earlier, dismay and distress millions of British people whose Christianity is much more real than apparent.
    Mr. Profumo: On a point of order. Various hon. Members are becoming extremely worried by the way in which this Amendment is being discussed. It appears to us that the only difference between this Amendment and those later on the Order Paper is that some Members, who vote in favour of this Amendment, will want to close the Gardens as well as the fun fair. Therefore, the arguments in favour of this Amendment should be directed primarily to the reasons for and against opening the Gardens, leaving the fun fair arguments for later. That is the first point I wish to raise. The second point is: Can you, Sir Charles, guarantee to the Committee that, however long this particular Amendment takes, we will certainly have an opportunity of discussing one of the later Amendments, so that those who would like to have the fun fair closed but the Gardens opened, will have an opportunity of voting?
    The Attorney-General: It is certainly the view of the Government that the main effect and purpose of the debate on this first Amendment is related to the Festival Gardens and not to the fun fair. There are some hon. Members who would be willing to see the Festival Gardens open, but who do not like the idea of including the use of the fun fair. It is certainly our desire on this side of the Committee, however long the debate on the Festival

    977
    Gardens, as such, may continue, to give ample opportunity to hon. Members who, while agreeable to the opening of the Gardens, desire to object to the use of the fun fair on Sunday afternoons.
    I would suggest, if it is proper for me to do so on a point of order, that it would be convenient if we could confine our discussion now to the Festival Gardens and concentrate later on the fun fair. It is true, of course, that if this Amendment were passed, it would be the end to the fun fair, but there are many hon. Members who want to see the Gardens opened on Sunday afternoons, but an end put to the fun fair.
    My Lord—[Laughter.] I must be permitted these occasional glimpses of intelligent anticipation. Sir Charles, might I suggest that the neatest way of dealing with the matter would be for hon. Members who are opposed as a whole to the Festival Gardens being open, whether they include the fun fair or not, to speak on this Amendment, and that those only objecting to the fun fair should restrain their impatience for a little on the assurance that they will have ample opportunity today or, if need be, on another occasion, to put their point of view?
    Sir H. Williams: This is my Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I moved it. The Attorney-General has not the slightest right to determine what should be the discussion. My Amendment covers the Gardens and the amusements as a combined effort. This idea of trying to side-track my Amendment by suggesting that we are discussing the Gardens only, is a device to defeat my Amendment, with the possible consequence that the other Amendment will be carried. The Attorney-General has no right to attempt to restrict the discussion.
    The Attorney-General: If I made any such attempt I deeply regret it. I hope I did not. I am content that this debate should go on for as long as the Committee desires it to go on. I have only pointed out to those hon. Members whose real opposition is to the fun fair and not to the Gardens, that a better opportunity for presenting the case against the fun fair arises on a subsequent Amendment. I am not entitled to dictate to the Committee, and I would not wish to do so, or restrict the debate in any way at all.
    Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Many hon. Members want to raise further points, and perhaps it would be best if, first of all, I answered the points that have been put. I was first asked about a guarantee, and the only guarantee that I can give is that if this Amendment is defeated, then the, next one will be called. Further than that I am not able to go. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General said was on the same lines as the earlier remarks of the Chairman of Ways and Means, that we should confine ourselves, on this Amendment, to the Festival Gardens. The Amendment is only concerned with that part of the Bill which goes down to the word "amusements" in line 11. Other Amendments will be coming along afterwards.
    Mr. H. Hynd: If your advice, Sir Charles, were followed by the Committee then if this Amendment were carried, there would be no opportunity at all of arguing the case for the opening or closing of the amusement park, because the second Amendment would not be called.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is the position.
    Mr. Thurtle: The Amendment is so widely drafted that there is nothing to prevent an hon. Member discussing the fun fair as well as the Festival Gardens.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is the point I was trying to make myself, earlier but I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we confined ourselves now to the Festival Gardens on this Amendment.
    Mr. W. G. Bennett: Could someone inform the Committee if the Battersea Gardens are at present open to the public on Sundays?
    Mr. Summers: Would I be right in assuming that the guidance tendered by the learned Attorney-General, with all of which I agree except one point, would result in a one-sided debate on this Amendment? If I understood him aright, this Amendment, if carried, would close the Gardens. He suggested that those of us who were in favour of that, should speak on this Amendment and the rest on the next Amendment. Surely the

    979
    effect of that would be that no speeches would be delivered in favour of keeping the Gardens as such open, and, therefore, we must reserve the right to speak on that aspect without mentioning the fun fair.
    Lieut.-Commander R. H. Thompson: I find myself occupying middle ground in this matter. To get rid of any misconception let me say at once that I support the Amendment, but I do not take up the very extreme stand which is taken by the Sabbatarians, who run the Lord's Day Observance Society, neither am I very impressed by the arguments of those who, like the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), on the Second Reading debate, object to any sort of advice or guidance being given to people as to how they should spend their Sundays. Nothing is easier than to acquire a reputation for broad-mindedness and fair dealing by saying, "No one is going to organise my Sunday for me."
    However, if we are to accept that point of view, it comes singularly ill from those who, in the political sense, are only too pleased to organise, advise and even direct their fellow countrymen as to what they should do. In these matters we should be very wary of allowing these Gardens to be open for the very good reason that we are whittling away something which is absolutely part of our traditional life.
    5.0 p.m.
    If we have standards which we find it is hard to live up to, we do not cure the case by seeing that those standards are not used. It is far better that we should accept the standards and try honestly to live up to them. I believe that the English Sunday, as we know it today, is well worth preserving. Most of us wish to see the material standards improved all round, but if we allow the moral and spiritual standards, as represented by the English Sunday, to collapse, it will not be very long before our material standards also collapse. Therefore, not in any sense because of religious intolerance or bigotry, but because I honestly feel that this is the beginning of a process which will be fraught with the most evil consequences if allowed to continue, and because I am unimpressed by the arguments of those who imagine that an intolerable degree of direction is
    980
    being imposed because the Festival Gardens are not to be opened, I shall support the Amendment.
    Mr. Messer: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware of the fact that the park is already open on Sundays?
    Lieut.-Commander Thompson: I take a very different view of the park being open on Sundays, as it is today, compared with opening the Pleasure Gardens, which, I understand, it will be difficult to separate from the rest of the park.
    Mr. Paget: I realise that many people have strong conscientious feelings on this matter. I have strong conscientious feelings myself on the subject of liberty. I do not recognise the right of any section of the community to limit the liberty of others in so far as that liberty does not injure them. Let us apply this test to the issue before us. We have heard an erudite speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), which displayed an amazing frivolity of facts. Far and away the greatest noise that will come from these gardens will be from the religious services to be held there. The community singing will create by far the greater amount of noise.
    Let us consider the conditions under which the fun fair will take place. There is not a house within 1,000 yards on the South Bank of the river. The nearest house is 300 yards away on the other side of the river. Between the nearest house are two belts of trees, which act as a pretty effective screen against noise, and the stream of traffic which passes along the Chelsea Embankment. Any one who lives in London knows that a continuous stream of traffic passes along the Chelsea Embankment and across the Chelsea and Battersea Bridges. That stream of traffic goes on all night and on Sundays.
    I can give an undertaking on behalf of the Festival Committee, as I have been told by their representatives that this undertaking could be given, that no amplifications of the human voice or of music will take place on the fair ground. To say that people in houses 300 yards from the bank on the other side of the river, with this constant stream of traffic which passes along the Chelsea Embank-

    981
    ment, will be disturbed, reminds me of the old lady who complained that mixed bathing took place on the other side of the bay which she could see if she looked through a telescope from the roof. That is the order of the complaint.
    I adopt the test of liberty so long as we do not injure other people. I should object to a league football match taking place on a Sunday, because that would disturb a whole neighbourhood. In this case, we have Pleasure Gardens which will disturb no one.
    Mr. Arthur Colegate: This argument is the same argument we have heard before. Is the hon. and learned Member arguing merely for liberty in respect of these Pleasure Gardens, or is he saying that theatres and every other form of amusement ought to be open on Sunday?
    Mr. Paget: I certainly accept that. My simple test is to choose liberty so long as it does not injure other people. Every Sunday entertainment that does not injure other people should be permitted.
    Mr. George Wigg: My hon. and learned Friend is dealing with only one of the objections to the fun fair.
    Mr. Paget: I have only just started my speech. I am dealing with the first objection, which is the nuisance caused to the neighbourhood.
    The next question is whether we hereby increase Sunday labour. Some people take the fundamentalist point of view that one day of the week is particularly holy. I would remind those people, as has already been pointed out, that that day is not Sunday but Saturday. For those who take the rather broader view and hold that it is wrong for people to work seven days a week, or more than five days a week, we have the assurance that the appropriate workers' organisations have been consulted and that every one who works on a Sunday will have his day of rest.
    Mr. Summers: Does not the hon. and learned Member accept the difference between the two types of rest, which he calls the broad and narrow view. Surely the difference is the difference taught by the Christian Church?
    Mr. Paget: I cannot help feeling that that comes a little odd from an hon.
    982
    Member in whose steel mills, or the steel mills with which he is connected a continuous process is being carried on.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: What happens with a family where more than one member is working? What happens to the housewife if they do not have their rest day at the same time? Was this not raised in an acute way when the coal miners were working three shifts? Does this problem not arise with a rota system?
    Mr. Paget: It certainly does. It is a problem that arises in steel mills and all industries which work a continuous process. It arises in transport. I would ask hon. Members who take that attitude some questions: Do they really never take a taxi on Sunday, or travel by train? Do they not read their morning papers on Monday or even have a game of golf and employ a caddie? Frankly, this argument that it is not fair that somebody should do an extra day's work is not real, it is not genuine.
    Then there is the thin end of the wedge argument. It is said "You may object to football matches and to greyhound racing but this Bill is the thin end of the wedge." I have always believed that the "thin end of the wedge" argument is one of the most fallacious that can be advanced. If we take the stand that we shall not give way upon what is reasonable, we build up resentment as we would build up a head of water behind a dam. It builds up to the point where it flows over. By resisting the reasonable thin end of the wedge we create a situation which is eventually far worse.
    Finally there is the argument: Perhaps this may be all right for London, but what about other parts of the country where fairs of this sort may exist? The simple answer to that argument is that they are not affected. Those fairs may go anywhere, and it is perfectly legal for them to do so. My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of "a great change in our national life which we should not show to the people of other countries." I would remind him that fairs on Sunday have been a feature of our national life for many years.
    Mr. McAdden: Are we to understand that the hon. and learned Member has the authority of the Government to say that fun fairs all over the country are perfectly legal.
    Mr. Paget: I am not speaking for the Government. I am saying that fairs all over the country have been a feature of our national life for many years, and that they still are. Any ordinary travelling fun fair which is not within a ring fence can carry on upon Sunday, and for 30 years they have been doing so all over the country. It is only an archaic Act of Parliament that would make this particular fun fair illegal because there is a charge for entry through a ring fence. That is the only difference. So we are, really making no difference to the general run of fun fairs. So much for that point. I have tried to deal with the various questions relating to how this fun fair could injure the liberties of other people.
    I do not think that that question, or indeed the Sabbatarian question at all, influences the mover of the Amendment. I do not think I should quarrel with the mover of the Amendment in saying that he is not interested in the Sabbatarian aspect of the matter, and that he is interested in the injury of a public enterprise. He hates public enterprise. He regards the Festival of Britain as an aspect of public enterprise and he wants to injure it for that reason. I would say a word of warning on that point. I do not want to make a point of party controversy, but there was a time when we on this side of the House were the most to blame in that way. Many who sat in this House felt that they had a grudge against private enterprise and they wished things to go wrong with private enterprise. With the achievement of responsibility we have got out of that attitude, but we can see it in the faces of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they enjoy things going wrong in public enterprise. Now that is a bad way of thinking.
    5.15 p.m.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting a little wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. Paget: I suggest that that is the whole argument of the mover of the Amendment. I suggest that it is legitimate for us to say that as we want the Festival to succeed we believe that the Festival will be injured if it is not opened On Sunday. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It will be gravely injured. The hon. Member desires to injure the Festival
    984
    because he dislikes it. To the mover of this Amendment, the Festival is something which ought to be eliminated.
    Mr. G. Beresford Craddock: How will the Festival be injured if it is not opened on Sunday?
    Mr. Paget: I can tell the hon. Gentleman. It will earn very much less money. The experience of private enterprise fun fairs all over England is that they earn almost as much on Sunday as in the whole of the rest of the week. A lot of people who have the weekend off will want to come to London to see the Festival during the week-end. The Amendment would prevent them from seeing a part of it. Really, this is the children's part of the Festival. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] These fun fairs are for children. People can take their families during a week-end and let their children enjoy these gardens and amusements. Of course this Amendment will injure the Festival. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Leslie Hale: In view of the remarks by hon. Members opposite, would my hon. and learned Friend make it clear that children are not to be admitted to the other parts of the exhibition and that the gardens are the only part to which they will normally be admitted?
    Mr. Paget: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. There is the point. There are those who want to injure the Festival because they feel that they have a private little war with the Lord President.
    Mr. Alport: Might I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to remember that there will be a Conservative Government in power by the time this Festival and this fun fair open, and that we shall be responsible for meeting the criticism that will no doubt come from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who will then be sitting on this side of the House? Therefore it is in our interests to see that the Festival succeeds?
    Mr. Paget: I do try to give way to interruptions. If one does so, I think hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be a bit fair. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that that was not a proper intervention. This is part of our show. It is England's exhibition and we all want to make it a success. I hope there is agreement on that and that the matter is settled.

    985
    The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), made a tremendous point of the fact that we must not make an exception in favour of a public enterprise show which we should not make for private enterprise. I should be delighted to get rid of this archaic legislation for everybody. An hon. Member opposite is bringing forward a Private Bill to this end, and I shall give him my wholehearted support. However, in practice, we are not today raising an exceptional restriction placed upon public enterprise.
    We are, in practice, putting this public fun fair in exactly the same position as all the other private enterprise fun fairs throughout the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what we are doing. What is the difference? They open at Blackpool, Southend, Weston, Hayling and all round this island. We want the fun fair to open in Battersea too so that people who usually go to the sea for the weekends and come to the Festival instead, will be in the same position as those who go to Brighton.
    Mr. Marlowe: The hon. and learned Member asked if there was any difference? The private enterprise fun fairs to which he has referred, which are in an enclosed space, risk action by a common informer, whereas this fun fair will be exempted from that risk.
    Mr. Paget: Those fun fairs are in a position to take a chance, which the Government are not. Only two of the fun fairs are within the ring fence. However, I hope that by next Summer the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) will have succeeded in passing his Bill—I believe it will have support from all sides of the House—and that these fun fairs will be authorised.
    What I regard as one of the most important aspects of this matter is the active lobbying by Sabbatarians who have organised a flow of letters to hon. Members. I believe a lot of hon. Members are voting simply because of that minority pressure—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—a lot of hon. Members. We have to realise that on most issues there are a minority who feel sufficiently keenly about it for their votes at the forthcoming General Election to be affected, and there are a majority whose liberties the minority wish to restrict but do not feel strong
    986
    enough about the issue for it to affect their vote at the General Election. That is the basis on which the system of lobbying—a system which has ruined Congress in America—has worked. A Congressman is not a representative of the community; he is the servant of sectional lobbying. That is how Congress works. There is the farm lobby and there is the veterans lobby, each having a block of votes at its disposal and trying to push sectional interests which can only be made effective at the expense of the rest of the community. We do not want to be reduced to the position of Congressmen. We must resist that.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir Charles, for an hon. Member to refer in opprobrious terms to a legislature which is friendly with this country?
    Mr. Paget: I hope that nothing I have said was approbious. It certainly is in order to compare how our legislature works with the way in which other legislatures work. I like the way our legislature has worked, and, therefore, I am uttering the warning that we should not submit to lobbying. I am here on a minority vote from a Nonconformist town. The Liberals who will settle the issue in my constituency are about 100 per cent. Nonconformist. However, upon this question I would rather not be here at all than be here upon the terms of a Congressman submitting to a minority who wish to limit the liberties of the majority.
    We hear a great deal of talk about liberty and freedom. It is easy to be on the side of liberty when that liberty is popular. The test is to be on the side of liberty when that liberty is unpopular. The test is who prefers the liberty and who prefers the votes. Here is a choice between the liberty and the votes. Those who prefer the liberty will have the chance to show it. I do not believe that God is offended by seeing a child on a roundabout on Sunday or any other day of the week, and I shall vote against the Amendment.
    Mr. Wood: I have given a very great deal of thought to this problem—I imagine that every hon. Member has—and the decision to which I have been forced is to vote on the same side as the hon. and learned Member for

    987
    Northampton (Mr. Paget). But I cannot say that I am as delighted with the speech that he has made, as I am to share his company in the Lobby. The base motives which he imputed to my hon. Friends were very much out of keeping with the spirit of the debate.
    I have given particular thought to this problem since the House voted on the question last Thursday, and particularly since they took the decision to open the Festival on Sunday afternoon. The conclusion that I have reached is that unless I can make a clear fundamental distinction between, on the one side, the opening of the Pleasure Gardens and the amusement park, and, on the other side, the opening of the Exhibition itself, I cannot honestly see how I can vote against its opening.
    One of the most impressive speeches on Thursday was that made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang) who told us all that each of us had to decide how we would spend our Sunday and that it was not for us to dictate to other people how they should spend their Sunday afternoons. He very vividly illustrated the shortcomings of compulsion with the delightful example of the girl who played the organ in his church and did not play it very well because she had had the "Whips" on her the week before. It impressed me that at least he was right on that point, that we should not try to compel people to lead their lives as others of us might think best.
    5.30 p.m.
    On Thursday night, despite the speech of the hon. Gentleman, I voted against the Second Reading. That is why I resented so much the imputation of bad motives to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). I voted as I did, first, because I felt that the Government should not seek immunity denied to other sections of the community. Secondly, I did not like to see in this country an extension under Government auspices of Government Sunday work. The House by a large majority decided in favour of these two principles. Personally I regret the decision. I should have preferred to see Sunday entirely different from other days, one day in the week when business is not as usual.
    988
    However it seems to me that if these two principles are accepted, as they were accepted on Thursday night for the Festival as a whole, we must find this fundamental clear-cut distinction. We must ask ourselves, is it more immoral or is it less innocent to go on a dodgem or a roundabout than it is to go and look at the Exhibition? If we cannot say, "Yes, it is more immoral or yes it is less innocent," then we cannot vote against the opening of the Pleasure Gardens and the amusement park.
    The distinction I make in my mind between "Dodgems" on the one side and the Exhibition on the other is perhaps paralleled in our lives by the distinction between having a game of golf or tennis on a Sunday and spending Sunday afternoon reading the history of England. I cannot believe there is really that clear-cut dividing line. In fact, I believe that if we tried to make that distinction it could only be a personal distinction. It would be completely arbitrary and, what is much more important, it would be based on something entirely subject to human failings and might easily be wrong.
    Therefore I cannot vote for this Amendment, but I should like to make two conditions. The first is that some Member of this Committee may convince me and I am still open to conviction—that there is a fundamental distinction between going to the Exhibition and going for a ride in a "Dodgem." Secondly, I should like to be satisfied by the Attorney-General that the Festival authorities will give the workers in the amusement park just as much freedom as is given to the general public to decide whether they go or not. The workers should have exactly the same choice as to whether or not they work on Sunday as the public have as to whether or not they visit it. In other words, I should hate to see willingness to work on Sunday made a condition of the employment of anyone in the Festival of Britain.
    Just as I believe pleasure is not wrong, so do I believe that work freely and willingly done on Sunday is not wrong either. The distinction I tried to make in my mind is well summed up in a quotation sent to me by a Methodist minister who used to live in my constituency. It is from a collection of sayings reputed to have been made by

    989
    the Founder of the Christian religion. One concerns His meeting a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath and saying to him:
    "Blessed art thou, oh man, if thou understandeth what thou dost."
    The Attorney-General: Our discussion on this Amendment, has, I think inevitably, tended to traverse some of the matter we discussed in the Second Reading debate last Thursday. I am not complaining of that. I may fall into the same course. This is a matter on which many hon. Members, naturally and properly, desire to speak, and the form of the Amendment has led to a general discussion of the merits and demerits of Sunday opening as a whole. In view of that, may I first emphasise that the issue of this Amendment is not that of the Sunday opening of the fun fair. Some hon. Members opposite have, quite properly, taken the opportunity when speaking on this Amendment of dealing with the fun fair. They have spoken in support of this Amendment although, as they have made clear, their real objection is not to the opening of the Festival Gardens as such, but to the opening of the fun fair within the Festival Gardens.
    It is perfectly true that if this Amendment is carried by the Committee, it will have the effect of killing the Amendment relating to the fun fair and of killing the fun fair itself without our having specifically debated as a separate issue the Sunday opening of the fun fair. But in killing the fun fair on this Amendment in that way, hon. Members will also be killing the Festival Gardens.
    Does the Committee really want to do that? Does the Committee really want the people of London and the people who will come up from the Provinces or from abroad to see the Festival of Britain or to have a weekend holiday in London, to be left with the amusement arcades, the cinemas, the public houses, the local fun fairs, the dance clubs and the rest, as they are today, but to close down this place of perfectly innocent and proper recreation in the outdoors? Does the Committee really want to single out for prohibition the Festival Gardens, not including the fun fair, because we can discuss the fun fair presently, whilst leaving all these much less desirable things open to those who choose to go to them?
    990
    The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) said last Thursday that he wanted to see facilities for buying tobacco on a Sunday—
    Sir H. Williams: No, I interrupted the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), to ask her where cigarettes were sold on Sunday because I wanted to indicate the great change which has come over Sunday trading.
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    The Attorney-General: I do not want to do the hon. Member an injustice, but I certainly thought the hon. Member favoured the opening of tobacconists on Sunday. It is not likely to influence the Committee either way whether he favours it or not, but the extract I have here is:
    "Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell me where I can find a tobacconist open in London on a Sunday. I have been looking for one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 566.]
    [Laughter.] I try not to be surprised by anything that happens, whether in the House or outside it, but I was just a little surprised to find that the hon. Member for Croydon, East, was more zealous in the cause of. I will not say Christianity, but strict Sabbatarianism—and strict Sabhatarianism is very often far removed from the spirit of Christianity—than all the Christian Churches and Archbishops put together.
    The Christian Churches and the Archbishops in their council, who have very carefully studied and examined this problem, raised no objection whatever to the Sunday opening of the Festival Gardens. Representing as they do all sections of Christian belief, all the organised sections of the various denominations of the Christian Church, they have made it abundantly clear that while they object to the Sunday opening of the fun fair, they take no objection to the Sunday opening of the other parts of the Festival of Britain. But the hon. Member for Croydon, East, wants still further to restrict the liberty of other people as to what they can do on a Sunday.
    I may have an opportunity of talking again about the law in regard to this matter on some other occasion. I do not want to introduce legal questions into the Committee on this part of our discussion, but under the existing law, so far as I can

    991
    judge, it would not be unlawful for the Festival Gardens as such to open on a Sunday even if a charge were made, as it is intended to be made, for admission to them.
    The Clause, omitting now altogether the reference to the fun fair, which is in a different position and which we shall discuss on the next Amendment, is simply included merely to remove all doubt about the matter. The existing law, however, specifically permits the opening, for instance, of botanical gardens, and I would have thought that the Festival Gardens were a place which would be at least closely analogous to a botanical garden. I do not think the expression is narrowly defined. The Act of 1932 expressly provided that such a place may be open. It covered not only botanical gardens, but, if I remember aright, zoological gardens as well. Under that provision, all over England stately homes have been open to the public on Sundays, although whether as botanical or zoological gardens or both I am not quite sure. Nobody has questioned the legality of that. I do not profess to be able to lay down the law in this matter—that is why we have the Bill, to remove doubts—but as far as I can see, there is no legal principle ditinguishing between the one case and the other.
    These Festival Gardens will be laid out in a number of main areas all sited in balance with each other, to provide a beautiful park. Great landscape gardeners and botanical experts are being employed in connection with the preparation and design of the park. There will be, in addition, it is true, to the displays of flowers of a kind which one does not often have an opportunity of seeing elsewhere, a restaurant, a café, and a concert hall, but all those things are perfectly legal in themselves on a Sunday afternoon.
    Apart from the question of the fun fair, to which we shall come subsequently, the Bill is simply required to remove any doubt about the legality of the opening of the Festival Gardens. This will be a place like the Tivoli Garden, for instance where the young children, who, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) quite rightly said, cannot be admitted to the exhibition buildings, will be able to go with their
    992
    mothers and fathers for what seems to me a perfectly honourable and seemly form of recreation on a Sunday afternoon. What possible harm can there be from any conceivable point of view?
    5.45 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Croydon, East, justified his Amendment almost solely on the ground that the closing of the Festival Gardens would cut down the amount of Sunday work. If that is really the motive behind his Amendment, why close down only the gardens? It is not in, the gardens that the great majority of people are to be employed on Sundays in connection with the Festival. Why not close down the whole thing, all the exhibitions on the South Bank and on the other side of the river, as well? All these are going to employ people on Sunday afternoons.
    What great nonsense the excuse—it is not more than an excuse—about Sunday work really is. This question of Sunday labour has arisen in many other connections. The trade unions have provided in their national and local arrangements for special terms on Sundays, and they have taken steps to ensure that the people who are required to work on Sunday have another day of rest elsewhere in the week. So far as the Festival authorities are concerned, I can certainly say, in answer to, I think, the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), that there will be no question of compelling people to work a seven-day week or to work on a Sunday if they have their own religious reasons for not desiring to work in that way.
    Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: I am entirely with the Attorney-General in resisting the Amendment, but there is a point I should like to clear up. The system is sometimes used of working on a roster so that all those engaged within an enterprise must take their turn in working on a Sunday. What assurance can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give in this matter? He would agree that in that case it becomes a condition of engagement that one must be ready to serve his turn on the roster for Sunday work. Will the Attorney-General make the position about this quite clear?
    The Attorney-General: Somebody behind me who knows more about trade union arrangements than I do says that that is not correct. I am assured that as far as

    993
    the Festival authorities are concerned, nobody will be compelled to work on a Sunday who does not want to work on a Sunday.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: That does not quite clear up my point.
    The Attorney-General: Surely, that is as far as the hon. Member can reasonably expect me to go. I do not know about the detailed arrangements or the organisation by Festival Gardens Limited, or by the Festival Council. It is enough for me to say, and is as far as I can say without having prior notice of the question, that so far as those two bodies are concerned, they will not compel anyone to work on a Sunday. That would be the way in which they organise this matter.
    The question of Sunday work, raised as a pretext in this debate, is really very great nonsense. The hon. Member for Croydon, East—I think it is established by the extract from HANSARD which I have just read—wants tobacconists' shops to be open. That means that they must work. A lot of us want the same thing—I am not criticising it—
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. I really must protest against the satirical remark. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is the second time that the Attorney-General has done it, and I resent it very much. It is quite wrong to give a false implication to something which somebody else has said.
    The Attorney-General: Members of the Committee will judge for themselves whether anything I have said is a falsification of what the hon. Member said. The last thing I should desire to do would be to falsify anything he said, especially when it is on record and I read his exact words to the Committee only three minutes ago. But I am not criticising the hon. Member for wanting a tobacconist's shop to be open on a Sunday, although that does indicate a little inconsistency with the views which he expressed on the Amendment.
    The truth is that many of us want tobacconists to be open on a Sunday and we do not worry ourselves about the fact that someone has to work to provide us with the facilities for buying our tobacco. Do we complain, any of us, about the people who have to work—and on a Sun
    994
    day morning, too—when some of us are at church, in order to prepare our meals for later in the day? Do we complain because others have to work to provide us with travelling facilities on a Sunday? Do we grieve over the people who have to prepare the Sunday newspapers we want to read—[An HON. MEMBER: "The Monday newspapers"]—the Monday newspapers, I am much obliged. Some of us, I think, find rather more edification in the Monday newspapers than some of the Sunday newspapers think fit to provide.
    Do we complain if we are fortunate enough to have a chauffeur—I have not—but does the hon. Member complain about his chauffeur having to work on a Sunday in order to drive him to those places to which he wants to go? Do we complain about the people who bake our bread on a Sunday? The truth of the matter is that we acquiesce in and we turn our eyes away from any form of Sunday labour which contributes to something which we desire for ourselves whilst some of us—I hope very few of us—raise it as a pretext against other people being allowed to do the things they want to do and that we do not want to do.
    The hon. Member for Croydon, East, does not want to use the Festival Gardens himself. Nor do I, for that matter, I entirely agree with the hon. Member; but that does not necessarily provide a reason for forbidding their use to other people. I am certainly not saying that I would subscribe for a moment to the doctrine that we are never entitled to forbid other people doing what we do not happen to want to do ourselves. That doctrine, carried to an extreme, would of course legalise all sorts of vices which nobody would be prepared to tolerate in this country. I am not subscribing for a moment to any such doctrine. But I think that where there is no undoubted vice—and I do not think anyone would suggest that going into these Festival Gardens is a matter of manifest and undoubted vice—we should be cautious in forbidding to others that which it happens we do not want for ourselves.
    The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Thurtle) referred to that very wise tag from Samuel Butler:
    "Compound for sins they are inclin'd to
    By damning those they have no mind to."
    We must be careful about doing that in this discussion.

    995
    I am not one of those who often says there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. Speaking generally, I do not think that is true of British law, but the practical truth is, as far as the Sunday Observance Act of 1780 is concerned, that it does operate to the prejudice of those things which naturally fall within the humble pleasures of the poor whilst leaving those of us in this House, those of us who are more fortunately placed, free to pursue those pleasures which commend themselves to us. I remembered, when I thought of this aspect of the matter, those lines in Gray's Elegy:
    "Let not ambition mock their useful toil,
    Their homely joys, and destiny obscure;
    Nor grandeur hear with a disdainful smile,
    The short and simple annals of the poor."
    I have no patience with those who sneer at those who have their recreation in parks—or in fun fairs. The truth is that the great mass of the people may not be so cultured as we think ourselves; they may not be so elevated as we like to consider ourselves; or so fortunate as we are, but they do find their recreation on a Sunday afternoon by going to the kind of thing that the Festival Gardens—I am not talking now about the fun fair—will provide.
    The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), in his remarks to the Committee, said that in the present unhappy state of the world it was desirable that people should have the opportunity of thought and reflection on a Sunday, and I entirely agree with that. It is daily more and more brought in upon me that:
    "The World is too much with us;
    Late and soon,
    Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers:
    Little we see in Nature that is ours."
    But does my hon. Friend really think that the closing of the Festival Gardens on a Sunday afternoon is going significantly to increase the numbers of those who will spend Sunday afternoon in religious devotion or in philosophic speculation? Is it not much more likely that the closing of the Festival Gardens on a Sunday afternoon will tend to drive them to those much less desirable forms of recreation which are available and at hand in London every Sunday afternoon?
    The Committee will have been, I am sure, deeply impressed, as I was, by the
    996
    courageously expressed and sincerely felt speech of the hon. Member for Bridlington. I should like to say, if I humbly may, that he was able to explain much more clearly and concisely exactly what I think about this particular problem. I ventured the other day to say that I hoped I approached this problem in a Christian spirit—perhaps I was hoping rather in the spirit of Abou Ben Adhem that I might regard myself as a Christian. We all of us, like the hon. Member for Bridlington, speak with great diffidence about matters of this kind because, naturally—and it is a very good thing—we all feel very shy in speaking in public about our religious beliefs and our inmost thoughts on matters of this kind. These are personal things we have to settle each one of us for himself, and it is a bit difficult sometimes to express them in public and expose oneself to the jeers and sneers which sometimes result.
    As a matter of fact, since I spoke last Thursday I have had a number of anonymous letters written in what seemed to me hardly the spirit of Christianity which their writers proclaimed themselves as possessing. Last Saturday it so happened that my wife had occasion to open a church bazaar and I suppose it got known, and today I got an anonymous letter saying that neither my wife nor I were fit to have any part in Christian religion.
    There is a great deal of bigotry about this matter. Like the hon. Member for Bridlington, I simply cannot believe that the opening of the Festival Gardens would be an evil in the sight of God. I cannot persuade myself that the Christian Churches, still less the Christian religion, need to support and buttress themselves by an over-strict regulation of the lives and conduct of others. I have got, as the Churches have in this matter, and as they have indicated in their own declaration, sufficient faith both in the principles of Christianity and the spirit of Christianity in this country to trust to the seemly behaviour of our people in matters of this kind, letting those who wish find their recreations in the Festival Gardens and leaving those who do not want to go there perfectly free to stay away.
    I want only to remind the Committee again that the issue of the fun fair will arise on the next Amendment and on that Amendment hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be perfectly

    997
    free, without any Whips on, to record their votes one way or the other as their consciences dictate to them. But this Amendment is quite contrary to the Government's view, which was approved by the House on the Second Reading of the Bill. We have, as a Government, a collective opinion about this Amendment, and we feel justified in asking our supporters to vote against it.
    I will add only that for my own part—I may be an undisciplined Member—I certainly would not vote against this Amendment unless I felt certain in my own heart and belief—and each individual has to satisfy his own heart and belief about this matter—that the closing of the Festival Gardens as a whole, but excluding the fun fair from that proposition, would really violate the Christian doctrines of toleration that we believe in and bring forth no praise of institutional religion as we practise it in this country. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
    6.0 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Committee is in a certain difficulty because emotion is stirred by the whole subject which we are discussing, and the debate consequently tends to stray away from the narrow issue which we are discussing into the more general issues raised by the Bill as a whole. We are greatly indebted to the Attorney-General for bringing us back to the fact that we are here discussing an Amendment as to whether a garden, a park, is to be opened or not on Sunday. If I may say so, the Attorney-General himself began to stray over that narrow dividing line towards the end of his speech, because he prayed in aid that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), with whom I can go some way but certainly not the whole of the way, because he said that he found it impossible to distinguish between opening the Pleasure Gardens and opening the amusement park. The Attorney-General commended his speech in general to the Committee.
    I am speaking entirely for myself. I have no power to commit anyone, and I am not speaking on behalf of any section of opinion. The Government have declared their intention to put on the Whips; there is no intention on this side
    998
    of the Committee to put on the Whips either on this or the next Amendment. Speaking entirely for myself, I must say that I shall find myself supporting the proposal that the Pleasure Gardens should be open on Sunday. I trust that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will acquit me of any desire to injure the Festival in any way if I vote, as I shall vote on the next occasion, against the opening of the amusement park, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Waldron (Mr. R. A. Butler).
    Both of us have been on the Advisory Committee of this organisation from the very beginning, and I have certainly taken steps which are opposed to the views of many of my constituents. But the narrow point which we are discussing can surely be settled without raising all the emotion which surrounds the whole question of Sunday opening, particularly of the amusement park. So much poetry has been quoted today, especially from Samuel Butler, that one might quote the other two lines:
    "And pulpit, drum ecclesiastick,
    Was beat with fist, instead of a stick."
    It is not impossible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington seemed to think, to distinguish between the opening of a garden and the opening of an amusement park. The best proof of that is that the Advisory Committee of Christian Churches have themselves recommended that the Gardens should be open but have demurred to the opening of the amusement park. When they can all draw a line, it seems possible for a line to be drawn.
    Nothing could be more dangerous than that we should say that, having decided on Sunday opening, we should go the whole hog and open everything. Some of the arguments presented, notably by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, seemed to indicate that everything should be open on Sunday—shops, the Stock Exchange, everything that anyone ever desired to engage in. That is a legitimate inference from the arguments which the hon. and learned Member advanced. If that was not his intention I can only say that it shows how very easily a case may be stated so as to give an impression other than that which its propounder intended.

    999
    The position of the Festival Gardens does not differ fundamentally from the position of the many parks and gardens which are open throughout the whole country to the great benefit of all concerned and without doing violence to the conscience of anyone. When we have to deal with the fun fair we shall be dealing with something entirely different.
    I trust that it will now be possible for us to proceed to that argument, upon which I think the Committee is extremely anxious to engage. It is for us now to come to a decision on what is, after all, as the Attorney-General has reminded us, the narrow point as to whether the consciences of people will be offended by the opening of a park where flowers and green grass can be seen. I cannot believe that that is so. I find myself in accord with the view of the Advisory Committee of Christian Churches that that is a legitimate activity for anyone to engage upon on any day, and one which can be of no offence whatever to any section of the community. Therefore, I shall support the opening of the Gardens on Sunday, although I find it necessary to vote against the other Amendment later.
    Sir H. Williams: We have had a most interesting debate. Never have more words been recorded about so few square yards of garden. I doubt if many people realise how small these Gardens will be. They will extend over 30 acres, and if 3,000 people are there the Gardens will be crowded. That being so, I fail to appreciate the idea that the people of, say, St. Helens will hurry to see in the Gardens what they can see much better free of charge every Sunday in St. James's park. I know that a lot of people want to talk about "Dodgems," so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Hon. Members: No.
    The Chairman: Is it the wish of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?
    Hon. Members: Aye.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. George Thomas: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "with or."
    This Amendment, if carried, will have the effect of requiring the fun fair to be
    1000
    closed on Sunday, while leaving the other part of the Exhibition open for the public.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. I am not quite clear, Major Milner, what has happened to the first Amendment. I know that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I heard objection expressed to that course, and when objection is so taken ought not the Amendment to be put?
    The Chairman: The position is perfectly clear. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. It is true that I was not clear as to whether anyone had said "No." For that reason I again put the Question to the Committee, and in my view the Committee unanimously agreed that leave to withdraw the Amendment should be given.
    Mr. Silverman: With great respect, Major Milner, I thought that the question put to the Committee was whether the Amendment should be withdrawn or not. You collected voices both ways, and that means that there must have been at least one "No," and one "No" would be sufficient to prevent the Amendment from being withdrawn.
    The Chairman: I have explained the matter perfectly clearly. So that I might know precisely what was the opinion of the Committee, I put the Question for a second time and, in my view, the Committee were unanimously agreed that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
    Mr. Thomas: Before I was interrupted by my hon. Friend I was making the point that the Amendment I have moved will leave this fun fair as the only part of the Exhibition to be closed. This is not in any sense a party issue. It is one which, I believe, will gain support from all parts of the Committee. Hon. Members may ask why we take exception to the fun fair and to nothing else. There are people, Members of this Committee and constituents outside, who feel that we are inconsistent in objecting to the fun fair but not objecting to the other part of the Exhibition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I invite hon. Members who said that, to walk up Charing Cross Road and to see some of the fun fairs there. I invite them to walk down the

    1001
    Strand to see the type of people who hang around some of these fun fairs. They will then have their answer.
    So far in this Committee, the fun fair is being interpreted as an innocent hurdy-gurdy where the happy voices of healthy children should be heard—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—at ten o'clock at night. Hon. Members are forgetting that this is not for the afternoon only. This provision is also for the evening. [Interruption.] The hon. Member who has already raised a point of order had only just come into the Chamber, I believe for the first time since the debate started.
    The arguments in favour of having fun fairs on Sundays are along the lines, first, that the liberty of the subject is offended by people who object to fun fairs and try to prevent them. It is said that the liberty of the subject is taken away. I submit that my hon. Friends are not arguing for liberty but for licence in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They are such lovers of liberty that apparently they resent me having the right to say that. The arguments that are used by the fun fair supporters are arguments that lead to the repeal of all Sunday observance legislation, for it must be conceded that this is not really the trifling issue of one fun fair.
    This is the question of whether Sunday is to be a different day in this country. It is a question of whether we shall have any restrictive legislation to keep the Sabbath day different from Saturday, Monday or any other day. It is wounding to the deepest feelings of a great section of the people that the House of Commons should want to take action on its own to make sure that Sunday shall become the same as any other day of the week.
    There are some who quote the Scriptures. We have had Scripture quoted from both sides in this matter. I am reluctant to make any quotation from Holy Scripture in this connection, but I take up the quotation which most people use—that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. That is regarded as a declaration which is unanswerable as a supporting case for the end of regard for the Sabbath day. Some will say that the whole of the teaching of the Master is that there shall not be one day devoted to the Sabbath. It is
    1002
    clear that this reference on this occasion was to the doing of good, the easing of pain and the helping of the troubled. The emphasis is on service rather than on indulgence and self-interest.
    6.15 p.m.
    There are some who remind us that there are 57 fairs operating in the country and that, therefore, it is wrong for us not to have the State supporting a fun fair at Battersea Park. There is a world of difference between people who are concerned only with the profit which they can make out of conducting a fun fair on a Sunday and the State itself giving the lead to the opening of entertainments of this nature all over the country. We might as well acknowledge that if the Committee agrees tonight to the Sunday opening of a fun fair in the Festival of Britain it is giving encouragement for the opening of fun fairs in every village and town in the land.
    The action cannot be limited to the period for which the Festival is to run. The weakest argument I have heard is that visitors coming to London will be denied the privilege of going to the fun fair on a Sunday. I find no strength at all in this argument. Hon. Gentlemen will tell me that people can already go on Sundays to fun fairs all over the country. If they are right, then the people are denied nothing at all if they come to London, because they can go to their own fun fair in their own town on the Friday or Saturday.
    The real issue is the profit which will be made on the Sunday. That is the real reason for this proposal. If the Festival could have been run at a profit without opening on the Sunday there would have been no proposal for the fun fair to have been open on the Sabbath day. If we are honest we must acknowledge that this is a question of £ s. d. and not of liberty for the British people.
    Mr. Crossman: I should like to put a fair question to my hon. Friend. He has said that this is a question of £ s. d. Would not he agree that if a provincial resident has to choose a day to go to the Festival, he is likely to choose a day when the whole of the Festival is open and not when one part is closed. If that is so, is not it unfair to say that it is purely a question of £ s. d. when it is open on a Sunday?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend has forgotten that people come to London now, in the main, on a Saturday. At least, the people from my part of the world do that. People from the provinces will not come to London and go home on the same day. If they are here at all on a Sunday, they will be here on the Saturday. In these days of the five-day week they will move on the Saturday. Therefore, there is no substance whatever in the suggestion that poor provincials will be denied their ride upon the roundabouts if the fair is not open on a Sunday.
    This matter has been debated at great length. I will not extend the debate unduly, but I would like to say this. I believe that the question whether Sunday is the proper day for the Sabbath day or not is an academic question. It is the day which, overwhelmingly, the British people regard as the Sabbath day, and it is a day which is very dear to a great many people in this country. We are denying no liberty.
    Mr. Thurtle: Yes you are.
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Thurtle) has said that we are denying freedom of choice. He believes in absolute freedom of choice for everybody. Yet I believe that my hon. Friend was one who voted for conscription.
    Mr. Thurtle: If my hon. Friend will permit me to say so, I voted for conscription in order to preserve our liberties. The whole is greater than the parts thereof.
    Mr. Thomas: It is a strange process of reasoning to take away a man's liberties in order to defend them.
    I believe that the Sabbath day has played a great part in the building up of the British character, and that it is unfair of those who are opposed to the point of view which I adopt in this instance to suggest that we are any the less concerned with the well-being of the State than they. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I thought, dealt very unkindly with this point. We are not adopting this point of view to gain popular support. I do not believe that anyone in the Committee is likely to vote in such a way as to make sure of a majority of votes. I believe that hon. Members will vote according
    1004
    to their convictions, and not according to their so-called political prejudices. There is no way at all for any hon. Member—the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury any more than myself—to know what the majority of people in this country want on this matter.
    I believe it would be harmful to the best interests of our people if we did anything to damage a day that has helped to build up our character, or to undermine the standard of values which provided that great strength to our fathers in the days that are behind us. I earnestly hope that the Committee will reject the idea of the fun fair being open on Sunday, while opening the Gardens and the Exhibition as a whole to the general public.
    Mr. Low: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), in the course of his speech, used words—I have not got them exactly—to suggest that the issue tonight is whether we shall have any restrictive legislation regarding the observance of Sunday. If that were the issue, I think I should be with him, but I do not consider that that is the issue, as I hope I shall show in the course of my speech. The issue tonight is whether the Festival of Britain exhibition as a whole and Pleasure Gardens, in particular, shall or shall not have the right to open the fun fair on Sunday with immunity against the common informer. That is the issue as I see it. I have already indicated that I take the view opposite to that expressed in the Amendment which has just been moved in such a delightful way by the hon. Gentleman, who always deals in this way with matters of this sort.
    I must at once get rid of one matter of which the Committee must be conscious. I represent a constituency in which fun fairs are open on Sundays, and I want to make that clear at once. I hope the Committee as a whole will realise that it is not just for that reason that I am taking the view which I am adopting tonight. Like the hon. Gentleman opposite, I do not think it will be reflected in the view of the Committee as a whole whether or not we hope to gain votes from this or that decision which we shall take tonight. I can assure the Committee that I have thought very

    1005
    deeply about this matter, realising, of course, that I am so closely associated with the manner in which Sundays are observed in that great health resort.
    The views I am going to put to the Committee are my own views—not views put to me by the owners of amusement parks, and still less views put to me by many constituents, who have written on the lines of the Lord's Day Observance Society, the opinions of the Free Churches and the views expressed by the Advisory Committee of Christian Churches of all denominations. The views I express are purely personal, as I think should be the case with all hon. Members who speak in this debate.
    I think that is important, because many of us, who are, in our minds at least, sincere members of the Church of England, must question ourselves very carefully when the view we are taking is the opposite view to that taken by the leaders of our Church. I think it is important to stress that we have been reminded, both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster), that on this matter we have to take a personal view.
    A number of reasons were given in the speech of the hon. Member opposite, and also given during the Second Reading debate, why it would be wrong to allow the fun fair to be open. Let me deal with them all quite shortly, because, even if the hon. Gentleman opposite had not put forward all of them, I feel that at some time during the debate we shall hear all these reasons put forward.
    6.30 p.m.
    The first one is on the question of Sunday labour. I was very glad to hear the Attorney-General dismiss that argument once again this afternoon. I think he did it quite fairly today and on last Thursday. There will be 500 extra people working if the fun fair is open, though none of them will be forced to work. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), whom I do not see here and whom I have not warned that I was going to mention his name, said that other things, like playing golf, caused an infinitesimal number of men and women to work on Sunday, and
    1006
    that if there were no golf they would not be working. That is very true from the point of view of one golf course, but, if one closed all the golf courses of the country, one would prevent a much larger number of persons than 500 from working on Sunday.
    I was glad to hear the Attorney-General say that no one would be compelled to work on Sunday. I am sure that is quite possible to arrange, and I am sure that in Blackpool, in places that are opened on Sunday, no one is compelled to work. I have not had any cases brought to my notice of anyone being discharged from employment because he was not willing to work on Sunday.
    The second point is the question whether the opening or not of a fun fair on Sunday will offend the consciences of a very large number of people. I attach a great deal of weight to the right of each one of us to have a conscience and to express it; but I say sincerely to the Committee that if we have a conscience, one of the first things we should think about is not to impose it upon the consciences of others. But if we carry to its logical conclusion the argument we must be careful not to offend anyone's conscience, where should we get? We should have to introduce all sorts of restrictions in the law if we had to see that nothing was done to interfere with anyone's conscience, whether that person was an old lady or a young or middle-aged crank.
    I am sure the Committee will agree with me that we cannot press the conscience argument too far. After all, what we are trying to find out is the right thing on which this Committee should legislate, so far as Sunday activities are concerned. It is not a question of conscience alone, but, of course, we will take into account the religious scruples and conscience on which much of the strength of character of this country are built up.
    The next point is that which was made on Thursday by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers). He said that, while each step towards a free Sunday may be all right, the cumulative effect of all of them is very dangerous. This is really not a new step. All over the country fun fairs have been opened, for 20 years at least, and, I think, for longer, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said.
    Mr. William Ross: I should like to correct the hon. Member. When he talks about "all over the country," he means England and Wales. of cours.
    Mr. Low: I quite appreciate that that is not true in Scotland, and in Wales, where I spent a large part of my early life. I should really have said "in many parts of the country."
    Mr. Thurtie: To reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), I understand from a Scottish colleague of mine that fun fairs are open in Scotland.
    Hon. Members: Where?
    Mr. Low: I have always made it a rule, both at Question Time and in debate in this House, never to interfere in Scottish matters. I think it was also said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that to say that 57 or more fun fairs are open in the country is merely to say that a few people in one locality or in 57 localities acquiesed in the opening of fun fairs. That is not a really correct argument. It is not a question of a few people, as he will find if he comes to Blackpool on a Sunday. Nor is it a question of a few people from one locality. It is a fact that a great many people from a great many localities have acquiesced in the opening of fun fairs on a Sunday, for a long time.
    Mr. Summers: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in referring to the distinction between 57 centres where fun fairs are opened on Sunday and the State opening a fun fair on Sunday, I was anxious to bring out the point that, it is one thing for the Government to acquiesce in people doing a thing and quite another for them to be the promoters.
    Mr. Low: I was just coming to that. and was going to deal with the point about the State. It is said that a special immunity is being given for the State to run shows on a Sunday. Let us look at the position of Festival Gardens Limited in this matter. First of all, it is a special occasion, and it lasts for five or six months. Secondly, it seems to me that if they had decided to open the fun fair on Sundays without coming to the House, they would have been running a risk of laying themselves open to a common informer, of which the House as a whole
    1008
    would not have approved. I think that they would also have been taking a somewhat cowardly line, knowing, as they must, the differences of opinion their action would raise.
    It might be argued that they could have decided not to open without coming to the House at all. I think that that would have been wrong. They owe a duty to the country, as a whole, to find out whether it was the wish that the fun fair should be open. The only way that could be done was by allowing the House to discuss the matter. It would have been contrary to their duty to decide, unilaterally, that the fun fair should not be opened. It is a fair argument to say that there is a large number of people, so-called "provincials" I do not like that expression—who possibly will come to London only at weekends and that this must have been in the minds of the board of Festival Gardens Limited.
    Secondly, it was asked—and I think this is also quite a fair argument—why the Festival of Britain, because it is a State enterprise, should be subject to special restrictions which did not apply to privately-run shows. I am in agreement with everybody who has spoken on this subject that the present law on Sunday observance, particularly as it applies to the common informer, must be revised as soon as possible. I hope the Government will give every support to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald), when he brings in a Bill to deal with the common informer later in this Session. But, by itself, the proposal that that Bill should be passed in the House of Commons is not sufficient to establish the protection that a State-run enterprise like the Festival of Britain is entitled to ask for when it is making its plans for next year.
    The last point made against the opening of fun fairs on Sunday is based on the British way of life. It is said that it is contrary to the British way of life that a fun fair should be opened in the Metropolis, or, indeed, in any part of the country, on a Sunday. What do we mean by the British way of life? We use it to mean an enormous number of things. When we are talking about democracy and totalitarianism, we mean a particular type of democracy which has manifested itself here. We do not mean

    1009
    exactly that when we use that argument in connection with the Festival of Britain. What we mean here, surely, is the way the British people live. It seems to me that in many parts of the country, but not in all parts of the country, the British people do go to fun fairs on Sundays, and I do not think that that argument by itself is conclusive one way or the other.
    Earl Winterton: That applies to all parts of the country.
    Mr. Low: As I have tried to indicate, I feel that this is not an occasion on which one should take the extreme view one way or the other. Nor is it an occasion when we are asked to take the extreme view one way or the other. I agree that much has been said about liberty and license, if we are to take the full import of some of the remarks of the opponents to opening the fun fair on Sundays. It seems to me that what we are asked to do tonight is to decide whether we shall draw the line, for the purpose of the Festival of Britain, one side or the other for the opening of the fun fair. [Interruption.] This is a difficult matter.
    Earl Winterton: My hon. Friend would be able to put his case more clearly if hon. Members. would not talk among themselves.
    Mr. Low: Hon. Members are quite convinced that they are right and I am fairly convinced that I am right; I think it is fair that they should listen to the arguments of others, even though they may already have made up their minds on the subject. Moreover, since the mover of this Amendment put his case quite shortly and since we have not previously had an opportunity to state arguments in favour of opening the fun fair on Sundays, I think it is reasonable that I should be allowed to put such arguments at some greater length than is normally tolerated by hon. Members with whom I sympathise in their search for short speeches.
    As I was saying, what we are concerned with here is not choosing between extremes. We are concerned with choosing the point at which we shall draw the line for the opening of the fun fair on Sundays, or its closing. Looked at in that way, it is quite a narrow matter, but I readily agree that it introduces all the emotional forces of the pro-Sunday
    1010
    observance man and of the pro-Sunday freedom man. In making up our minds we cannot neglect the position of the people who will be coming with their families from far off to see the Exhibition at the only time of the week when their work will allow them to come. That is the first point.
    I think somebody jeered this afternoon when the hon. and learned Member for Northampton mentioned children. I do not think that we should leave out of account the needs of families with children. It may be that many hon. Members will say, "I would not allow my children to go to the fun fair on a Sunday." I say frankly that I should not allow my children to go to the fun fair on a Sunday, for the very good reason that in the circumstances in which they are they can go any other day of the week. But I am not prepared to use my vote in the House of Commons to prevent other people from taking their children to the fun fair on Sundays when they have no other opportunity of going to the fun fair. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Saturdays?"] It is a common delusion of many hon. Members that people will come to this Exhibition for two days. Where will they stay if they do come up for two days? [Interruption.] I think I heard an hon. Member say, "In a public shelter." That was a most unworthy remark.
    These people will come up one night and will very likely go back over the next night. There is probably not enough transport, among other things, to bring all who want to come for two nights as opposed to one night. Let us consider the people who come only for one day, and a great many of them will only be able to come on a Sunday. I beseech the Committee to look at the matter from that point of view, whatever may be their own views about what should or should not be done on Sundays. I hope they will examine their own hearts to see what they do on Sunday themselves. I hope they will bear in mind that it is the duty of hon. Members, provided that they do not offend the essentials of their religion, to give other people the chance to do what they choose to do on Sundays. For that reason, I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment moved so charmingly, but I think mistakenly, by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Wigg: I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), is completely sincere and honest in the views which he has expressed to the Committee. Indeed, I would say the same of any hon. Member who expressed the same point of view, although it is not one with which I agree. All I would ask of hon. Members who do not agree with me is that they will concede to me the same honesty and sincerity that they claim for themselves.
    This afternoon we have heard arguments not from the opposite side of the Committee but from this side, in which, I regret to say, those who share my view were charged with being un-British and totalitarian. We were also charged with the worst and meanest form of political opportunism when it was suggested we had made up our minds on the basis of the letters which we have received from our constituents. Throughout the Second Reading of the Bill, and again today, it has appeared almost to be a crime that a constituent should dare to write to his Member and suggest what action he should take. I am very glad indeed that my constituents have written to me; indeed, I went out of my way to ask that they should write to me, but in making the suggestion that I should be glad to hear their views on this issue I have not surrendered my judgment. I am responsible for my vote this evening, and I shall cast my vote not under pressure from any group of people but according to what I regard as the best interests of my constituents and of my country. That is a fair enough explanation of where I stand on this issue.
    The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), was kind enough to say that he had not already made up his mind and was open to persuasion. I hope he will forgive me if I try to get him to go into the Lobby with me. He was in some difficulty because he could not see a logical explanation for the difference between reading Trevelyan's "History of England" on Sundays and going to the Festival of Britain on the South Bank. I think that is fair enough, but I do not think that one can be expected to find a logical explanation. There is no logical distinction between these two activities.
    The fact is that we do not claim to be a logical race. Anyhow, whether we
    1012
    claim it or not, we are not logical as a race. Our way of life cannot be written in one volume. It varies from town to town, from county to county and from one family to another. The way of life of the people in my constituency is different from the way of life of people living in Bournemouth, Cheltenham or London. Because they are different it does not make one better or the other worse. The fundamental fact is that they are different.
    It is that difference and that tolerance which has grown up during the last two or three hundred years that has brought about all the colour and picturesqueness which has given England those characteristics which we intend to display at the Festival. It would be a fundamental mistake for any hon. Member, and certainly for the Committee as a whole, to believe that we can make men good by legislation. I am certain that we cannot and, if we try to do so, we shall put ourselves in a terrible mess. Certainly, I do not want to try to make people better by preventing them from going on a dodg'em on a Sunday afternoon.
    I noticed that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) based his argument on behalf of the fun fair on the absence of noise. I am not concerned about the noise. I am not concerned whether the fair is a good thing or a bad thing. I ask myself: What kind of an England would it be if we gave the makers of dodg'ems and roundabouts a free hand and if they were able to have not just 57 places where they could put on their shows but a show in every hamlet in the country? The constituency of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North, has an interest in this matter. I remember when a fun fair in Blackpool did not take the innocent form of three balls at a coconut shy or a ride on the "Big Dipper," but took the form of an unfrocked clergyman of the Church of England exhibiting himself in a barrel.
    Mr. Low: I think that, without intending it, the hon. and gallant Member is muddling a variety of fun fairs in Blackpool. The type to which I referred, and the only type immediately relevant to this issue, is that which is to be copied in Battersea. It has nothing to do with the odd arcades in Charing Cross Road

    1013
    which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), has already castigated.
    Mr. Wigg: Before I continue, would you, Major Milner, be good enough to ask the meeting at the end of the Chamber whether they would join us for a moment?
    I certainly do not want to be unfair to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North. It is a long time since I went to a fun fair with any great pleasure. There was a time when I went with my father, who paid the bill. Now I am a father myself, several times, and I have to pay the bill, so I am not so keen. One generally found that the fat woman and the sideshows were part of the show. Of course, it may well be that the authorities and the Lord President of the Council have investigated this and that we shall not have that sort of show at Battersea, but the point is that we cannot judge these fun fairs on the basis of the Lord President's views; we have to judge them by what goes on in Blackpool and in Belle Vue.
    The Attorney-General: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he will recall that we have expressly provided in Clause 1 (4) for the prohibition of a number of things which would otherwise have been permissible in any fun fair. Whether these things take place at Blackpool or Margate or Clapham Junction I do not know, but we have expressly provided that this subsection
    "shall not authorise … a stage play, variety entertainment, circus turn or puppet or marionette show, for a contest or display of boxing or wrestling, for public dancing…"
    We are proposing to insert an additional safeguard through an Amendment on the Order Paper today which says that, in addition to those expressed prohibitions, nothing shall be allowed at this fun fair which is not expressly authorised by a Minister designated to deal with the matter. The object of that Amendment and of subsection (4) is to ensure that, if the Committee approves the principle of swings and roundabouts, there will be adequate machinery to make quite clear that nothing unseemly shall be provided, such as an unfrocked parson in a tub or anything of that kind.
    Mr. Wigg: I thank the Attorney-General for giving me the opportunity to
    1014
    interrupt. I am not dealing specifically with him, but with some of his supporters. The argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is that there will be no noise. Another argument is that opening the fun fair does not matter because fun fairs are open in 57 other places. What I am concerned about is not so much what happens in Battersea but the argument that may be used if we permit the fun fair to be opened. We may find we have it in 57 other cases.
    If the supporters of the Clause are so anxious that the public should have an opportunity to use their Sunday afternoons, why does not the House set an example? Why does not the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who is chairman of the Advisory Committee, suggest to the House that the House of Commons should be open on a Sunday afternoon?
    Earl Winterton: I think it would be correct to say that that statement was slightly irrelevant. There is nothing whatever to prevent hon. Members taking strangers round the House on a Sunday afternoon. They can do so if they so desire. They can go to cinemas or to dirt track races or to anything else.
    Mr. Wigg: I am very glad to hear that. My constituency is 120 miles away from London and the people from Dudley and Stourbridge who come to London on a Sunday to visit the Festival would, I am sure, welcome the opportunity of going round the House of Commons. That is one of the things I should like to see; I should like to put down an Amendment to the Bill to make it possible for my constituents to go round the House of Commons on a day when they come to the Festival of Britain.
    Earl Winterton: This is a more serious matter than appeared at first sight. Coming from such a source I did not treat it as very serious at first, but if the hon. Member is prepared to submit a proposal to our Committee, supported by all the other Sabbatarian interests in the House, we shall consider it very carefully.
    Mr. Wigg: I am very glad to hear that, even if was accompanied by the usual rudeness which one associates with the noble Lord.
    I speak for my constituency in this matter. I believe that the overwhelming majority of them would be in favour of

    1015
    the opening of Battersea Park because they will not have Battersea Park on their own doorstep, but I believe that if this House agrees to the opening of the fun fair on Sunday afternoons we shall be doing a very grave injury to something which is typically English.
    Mr. Baird: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman gave an interview to his local newspaper in which he said that he had no strong views on the matter and that he would welcome the views of his constituents?
    Mr. Wigg: I specifically refrained from giving my views. I said that I would welcome the views of any constituent who cared to write to me on the subject, but I subsequently made it quite clear to all who wrote to me that, in extending that invitation, I did not surrender my judgment. I did not surrender it then and I do not surrender it now. I believe it is in the best interests of the people and in accordance with the traditions of the people of Worcestershire and Staffordshire that the Committee should reject this Amendment. If we do reject it we shall be doing something which, in the long run, will be in the interests of all that is best in our way of life.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Peart: I hope the Committee will reject this Amendment. I respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and I hope that hon. Members on both sides who agree with the Amendment which he moved will, in turn, respect the views which I and other hon. Members hold in opposing it. I believe that this Amendment does not merely involve the fun fair at Battersea, but that it raises something much more fundamental, and here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), who spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill. It raises, I believe, the fundamental question of liberty, and, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, has said, I think he is wrong in saying that we are confusing liberty and licence. To many of us it is fundamentally a question of liberty—me right of men and women to enjoy their leisure in the way they choose without interfering with the rights of other people.
    Mr. Osborne: Does the hon. Member agree that the same liberty should be exercised in economic affairs, and would he apply his remarks to the action taken by Durham County Council with regard to their employees having to join trade unions?
    Mr. Peart: That, I believe, is another matter, but were we to go into the question of economic affairs I should say that I believe that men are much freer when they control the economic machine. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is my point of view. I merely say to hon. Members who disagree with me that I believe that it is fundamentally right that men and women should use their leisure in the way they choose, providing they do not impinge upon the rights of others. I believe that that is a fundamental right, and that in a democratic community it should be enshrined in our customs and in our constitution. It concerns the relationship of the State towards the individual's use of leisure.
    I should like to commend to my hon. Friends who take the opposite point of view—as there have been so many quotations tonight—something from a very famous essay on liberty, John Stuart Mill's "Liberty." I commend this to hon. Members from Wales who take a different point of view from those Radicals who still believe in the old Radical tradition. This is what John Stuart Mill said:
    "Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life. and enslaving the soul itself."
    Mr. Osborne: As they are doing in Durham today.
    Mr. Peart: I wish the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) would restrain himself. He may disagree with my point of view, but it is a point of view which I sincerely hold. That passage from John Stuart Mill expresses my attitude and the attitude, I believe, of hon. Members who oppose this Amendment tonight. As I have said, I ask for the right of the individual to choose his own leisure for his family and himself providing he does not infringe the rights of other individuals.

    1017
    After all, we have only just emerged from a war against totalitarianism. In that German State before the war we saw how a dictator tried to organise the leisure of the majority, and, indeed, of the minority, of the people of that country. I say to hon. Members tonight that if we believe in democracy, if we are prepared to inveigh against and resist that form of totalitarianism, then we should be prepared as a Committee to allow a section of the community the right to enjoy their leisure.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene? I believe he is getting to the crux of the problem. He is advocating the rights of the minority. There must be people in Battersea, and perhaps a large majority, who would welcome the fair, but there are many people who object to it. How would my hon. Friend protect the rights of that minority?
    Mr. Pearl: I am quite prepared to take into consideration the views of the people in Battersea. As far as I know, there will be provisions for any opposition to a nuisance if it is created. The interdenominational committee in the Battersea area have more or less accepted the main provisions of this Bill, and have agreed to the holding of open air sermons and religious ceremonies. I believe that the law should provide certainly for the right of people to be protected from a nuisance.
    It is the responsibility of this Committee to be tolerant. I say that to many hon. Members who take a different line tonight, particularly to those hon. Members who on Sundays may enjoy a game of golf, or who enjoy, for example, as I do at Roehampton, watching a game of cricket, or going into a public house to have a glass of beer, or driving motor cars on Sundays in the countryside. To many people they are noisy. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, does not oppose that form of pleasure. I say to those hon. Members who have those activities on a Sunday—Please be tolerant and let men and women choose their own type of pleasure and social enjoyment.
    I know that people have been rather condescending tonight on the pleasures which are enjoyed at fun fairs. Many hon. Members, I believe, on all sides of the Committee, at some time of their
    1018
    lives have enjoyed fun fairs, and I think that some of them have been tonight very hypocritical in their opposition to them. I merely ask that the Committee, which has to make this decision, should be tolerant on this matter. If hon. Members feel that their constituents do not wish to enjoy these pleasures, then their constituents have a perfect right not to go to the fun fair or to the Pleasure Gardens.
    I trust that every hon. Member, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said last week, will not be influenced by postcards or by pressure groups who have organised a campaign against this Bill. I believe that hon. Members who have expressed a different point of view from mine have sincerely given their own personal opinions and will go into the Lobby tonight sincerely believing they are right in the action they are taking, and will not be influenced by any pressure groups who may have attempted to influence the voting position in our constituencies. I plead that if we are a democracy, if we believe in tolerance, if we believe in the right of individuals to enjoy their lives in their own way without interfering with the rights of others, we should emphatically reject this Amendment.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: One of the charms of being able to participate in a debate in which the Whips are off, is that one finds oneself quite delightfully and unexpectedly on the side of many hon. Members with whom one has not felt any great sympathy before. I do not apply that to the hon Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), for although I enjoyed his speech he did not take the line I myself take over this matter. I do apply it to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). But having said that, I should like to say, with great respect, that I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington took an untenable line in his speech when he spoke about the desire to allow full freedom to others. It is a line which all of us respect whatever point of view about this particular Amendment we may take.
    Mr. Pearl Mr. Pearl rose—
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I have just started my speech, and the hon. Member

    1019
    has just made his speech. Perhaps he will allow me to develop the point, and if he disagrees with it I shall gladly give way to him later.
    The hon. Member went on to say—and I have the greatest sympathy with this point—that the people of this country, which is, of all countries, the home of freedom, should be allowed to do what they want subject to the proviso which he himself made, and subject to the proviso which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made, that in so doing they do not injure the rights of others. It is really upon that point that I want to say a few things—and I shall be extremely brief. Just because I choose to spend my Sunday in a certain way, because I like to be quiet on Sunday, to spend my Sundays with my family and to go to church at least once, I do not insist that other people should do the same. I do not mind if other people want to play tennis or golf, or to ride, as I have often ridden myself, or to walk or to motor on Sunday afternoons. I do not mind about that in the least. But I do suggest that there is a valid distinction which ought to be drawn between private arrangements of that kind and the facilities which we are being asked to give to the Government, or to promoters and organisers acting under the Government, to organise mass entertainment on a Sunday.
    I believe that there is a valid distinction, of which the Committee ought to take cognisance, between a private citizen availing himself of existing facilities for Sunday recreation and the Government of the country taking a lead—as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, so rightly said—in facilitating the organisation of the type of amusement which we are considering in this Committee this evening.
    Only the other night I was re-reading a passage in "English Saga" in which Arthur Bryant quotes from a speech made in this House by Macaulay. It is not a long quotation, and I should like just to remind hon. Members of it. Macaulay was expressing his view that
    "We are not poorer but richer because we have in this country, through many generations and through many ages, rested from our labours upon one day in seven That day is not lost. While industry is suspended, while the plough lies in the furrow, while the Exchange is silent, while no smoke ascends from
    1020
    the factory, a process is going on quite as important to the wealth of nations as any process which is performed on more busy days. Man, the maker of machines, is repairing and winding up so that he returns to his labours on the Monday with clearer intellect, with livelier spirits, with renewed corporal vigour."
    I believe that if it were not part of the Christian belief that one day in seven should be kept as a day apart, it would be desirable to legislate in that sense. Yet here we have a British Government coming to this Committee and seeking for itself, and for the promoters and the organisers who derive authority under it, a mandate which is denied to all other sections of the community in respect of the opening of an amusement park. There cannot be the slightest doubt that this proposal and all that it has implied has offended the deeply held convictions of millions of decent law-abiding ordinary folk, and for my part I cannot do other than oppose it.
    7.15 p.m.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: As a large number of hon. Members wish to take part in this debate, I shall be as brief as I can. I think that a debate of this sort is always of interest to the Committee. I well remember the debates on the Prayer Book which took place a long time ago; if they had been continued very much longer in the atmosphere which was engendered, I think we would have been burning each other at the stake. Happily, today people have been able to express their views in relation to a matter of conscience, and I should like to put two points which I do not think have been mentioned.
    When this project was originally discussed, I felt very strongly the necessity that those responsible should try to make it a great success if it was to be done at all, and I am more than ever convinced that we must make it a great success if we possibly can. One of the things that appeals to me, as I think to all of us, is that by the time this Festival of Britain opens we shall be asking those engaged in industry to work a great deal harder and longer than they have ever worked before, and I should feel very sorry if those whom we are asking to work harder were unable to enjoy what will be available for other people who are not working harder. For those working in many industries necessary for rearmament, which will be a continuous process, Sunday will be the

    1021
    only day upon which they can come to London.
    When the matter was first discussed, I asked the Lord President whether he would consider using the water buses from the various piers to bring Kew Gardens, which are unique in Europe, and also Greenwich Hospital and the Maritime Museum, into the Exhibition?
    Sir Arnold Gridley: That is out of order.
    Sir R. Glyn: I hope not. Anyway, I say that if we are to try to provide what will be of interest to people on Sunday, let us show them the very best that we have got, and provide such means of getting there as we can.
    How many hon. Members know what will be at the fun fair? I have listened to most of the debate, and when the Attorney-General spoke and added one more point on the restrictions that are to be put on, I felt that this would be anything but a fun fair. It seems to me that a great many things are being ruled out. It is not wise to prophesy in a matter of this sort, but I am convinced that when the people of London and the surrounding districts realise what is being done to improve Battersea Park, they will be amazed. John Piper has created a beautiful vista, and Mr. Russell Page, the landscape gardener, is doing a wonderful job, and I think it will be a permanent acquisition to the country.
    What do we mean by an amusement? There is a boating lake, an aviary, a children's pet corner such as there is at the Zoo, and a few most innocent things like that. Is it not rather nonsense to say that parents can bring their children to Battersea but that those children cannot paddle about in the lake? I do not think the visitors will have a very good impression of our Sabbatarianism.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: They can do that in Battersea Park today.
    Sir R. Glyn: At any rate, inside the area which is cordoned off there are these special lakes, and I certainly hope they will not be dug up when the Festival of Britain ends, because they are part of the landscape gardening which I think has been extremely well done.
    The other point I should like to make is that each of us has to have his own
    1022
    conscience about this. It has been said all through the debate that we must act for ourselves and not be influenced by this postcard vote. I am old enough to remember the strict Sabbatarianism which some of my relatives used to enforce when I was a boy, and I hated it. It was dull. There were other relatives of mine who had a much happier, hopeful and Christian way of spending Sundays, and I must say that, as a child, I liked them much better than I did the others.
    I agree with the definition which we have heard today that we must do nothing to offend people or to hurt their consciences. No one wants to do that. On the other hand, I do not want to be more episcopal than the bishops. That would be a foolish attitude for a layman to take. As I understand it, all the Churches have said that they want these amusements to be open—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—wait a minute—in so far as the park is concerned, without the so-called fun fair. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that I am right. There are many things attached to the park which are quite distinct from the fun fair. Are we going to close these or not? I do not know. It seems to me that in this plan, which I have here, we shall have to define our restrictions rather more closely, or we may find that there is no place to go at all. There are to be dances and services, and presumably a child will be able to look at the birds in the aviary—or is that considered wrong on a Sunday? Presumably, they can go to see the pets in the animal enclosure. It is going to be difficult to draw the line.
    All I say is that I think we cannot be prim and prosy about this. We have to ask our own consciences what is right. I remember that when all the Cinema Acts came before the House, there were long arguments on whether they should be opened on Sundays or not. The matter was settled in the end, as so many things are in the House, by compromise, and there was left a local option for towns to say whether they wanted their cinemas opened or not on Sundays. That seems to work pretty well.
    The only people who may I am afraid object to this very much are the people who live 300 yards away from this fun fair. I should like to know what they feel. Although it has been said that it is silly to draw a distinction between

    1023
    noisy and quiet amusement, I think that we ought to draw a distinction, because I feel that the more noisy one is, the more likely one is to give offence to other people. The quieter we are, the more happy we can be with our families and children, and I think we shall find that the family who have spent a happy day in beautiful surroundings enjoying themselves will all say that they have spent a happy Sunday.
    Mr. James Hudson: In the debate so far, a good many references have been made to Sunday observance, and there have been some complaints that the Scriptures should be quoted as witness to the matter under discussion. I do not know that I would disagree with the complaint, but I feel that the Sunday observance societies are so literal in their approach to this question that it is also essential to be literal in offering some reply. We are here presumably holding firm to Sunday because of a stern old law that we should remember the Sabbath and keep it holy—
    "in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates."
    When we come to servants, in one version, we are to give them rest because we would have rest for ourselves. I agree that that is an important law, and that it matters for the good of the life of the community. I think that it has mattered very much in the history of this country and the history of the working classes, for during long periods of industrial exploitation there has been one day kept clear for rest for the workers who otherwise, in some periods of our development since the industrial revolution, would have had nought but unrelieved toil.
    Therefore, I do not approach this problem in any forbidding spirit, although I am going to oppose, root and branch, the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). I do so because, in the first place, I think that we have already decided our position, particularly on these benches, by what has already taken place. I make no complaint about the Government having allowed a free vote on this matter of the Amendment, and having called upon us to vote another way on the general question last Thursday. But
    1024
    we decided last Thursday that many of our servants—men servants and maid servants—should work hard for the welfare of those of us who will go to the South Bank. So far as the ox and the ass are concerned, I think that innocent mode of transport of a bygone age has changed to the modern motor bus, but there are plenty of servants engaged in transporting those of us who are a little superior in our enjoyments and who will make our way to the South Bank under the terms allowed by the House last Thursday night.
    It looks like hoi polloi if we have to make special restrictions for those who would go to the roundabouts. I do not usually use the term hoi polloi, but I feel that I am well justified in using it on this occasion, because I feel that is how the Sabbatarians on these benches are tending to look at it. I feel that we ought to be a good deal more frank about what we have committed ourselves to. We may not have a Shakespearian "Merry Wives of Windsor," for example; but if it is set to music it is all right as long as there is no stage setting. We can have restaurants on the South Bank and good food and drink. Many people find amusement in ways which I do not find it and which apparently the majority of the hon. Members here do not find it, but to begin to make exclusions on the basis of religious injunction, is surely humbug.
    7.30 p.m.
    The question was raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, about keeping Sunday differently. We can keep it differently in many ways. I wonder sometimes why the Lord's Day Observance Society does not find it necessary to keep Sunday when it comes to the opening of the 10,000 public houses and drinking clubs in London and elsewhere. Yes, I will deal with Wales, too. The phrase "10,000 pubs" reminds me of the lines in Cowper:
    "Ten thousand casks
    Forever dribbling out their base contents …
    to fill a nation's woe. Why does Wales want to come on Sunday to London, where there is so much potential evil? Why is Wales, with its special Sunday closing legislation, not logical in Wales—for they leave the clubs open for drinking?

    1025
    I go back to the point which was made on the Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), that if there were any honesty in the Lord's Day Observance Society, for years past they would have directed their attention to this question of Sunday opening. They have not done so. I heard my hon. Friend say that they got certain subscriptions from the brewing interests. I do not know about that, because I cannot prove it. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is denied."] I heard the same statement made by my late friend Dr. Alfred Salter. It was denied then, but there has never been any subscription list published. There is evidence that this body—on which sit many temperance reformers who ought to know better—in the matter of the people finding enjoyment in public houses on Sundays, has made no effort to call attention to the matter and to campaign against it.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend advancing the argument that he wants to close the public houses on Sunday, but is against closing fairs on the same day?
    Mr. Hudson: I am not advancing any argument of my own now about closing public houses. When the time comes, I will make a case for putting the public house in an entirely different category from the fun fair and the roundabout. We are not dealing with that now, but with the Lord's Day Observance Society, and the Members who support the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. I know he is making his case on his own Welsh ground, but he happens to fall into line with this Society and certain hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Thomas: But surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Lord's Day Observance Society is as angry with me as it is with him, because I am proposing the closing of the fun fair only on the Sabbath Day, and it wants everything closed on that day.
    Mr. Hudson: I do not think it is as angry with my hon. Friend as it will be with me when I sit down. I look upon the Lord's Day Observance Society not as a friend of religion, but as a enemy. I regard its insistence on securing goodness and righteousness by compulsion as something which is revolting to the great mass of our people. I believe our people today are looking for better ways and more sincere, spiritual fundamentals. They
    1026
    can be helped to find those ways by example. Most of us—and I include myself here—are unworthy when we consider that. They can be helped a little by our precepts, but they cannot be helped by compulsion. Where I disagree with the Lord's Day Observance Society is that if we want our people to look back again at Sunday in its true sense as a day of rest, it should not be by law, especially a law of the 17th century. We must observe Sunday as something different from the rest of the week, and as necessary for the general welfare of our people.
    It would be serving the interests of religion better if we took that course, and I hope that some of my hon. Friends who have made up their minds on this issue will reconsider their attitude, remembering that they have permitted on the South Bank something which will bring happiness to the people who will go there on Sunday, and that they should not deny to others the same rights. If we act in that spirit, I am confident that the majority in this Committee will not stand for my hon. Friend's Amendment, which I ask the Committee to reject.
    Mr. Black: I want to support the Amendment before the Committee. I am against the opening of the fun fair on Sundays. I want, at the outset, to take up one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). I can join with him in the view that he expressed that it is essential that we should make a success of the Festival. I agree with him that all Members, whatever their views may be on this particular issue, must do their utmost to ensure that that goal is reached. I am diametrically opposed, however, to the method which he suggests we should adopt to make the Festival a success. Because I believe that this proposal to open the fun fair on Sundays is the worst and most damaging blow which could be delivered at the success of the Festival, I shall vote against it.
    The essential for the success of the Festival is unity on the part of all sections of the public in its support, and without unity it is impossible for it to be the unqualified success we all desire. For that reason, I believe that the Bill, and particularly the proposal to open the fun fair on Sundays, is the worst blow that has been delivered so far against the prospect of a successful Festival. For

    1027
    that reason, among other reasons, I hope that we shall decide to carry the Amendment and close the fun fair on Sundays. It would be a very great mistake if Members came to the conclusion that the opposition to Sunday opening comes from a small and uninfluential section of the community. I do not believe that the opposition comes from any such limited section of the public. I think the indications are that throughout England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there is a large section of the British public which is very gravely concerned at the proposal to open the fun fair on Sundays.
    It is a significant fact that every branch of the Christian Church, while the various branches may be separated in their views on other aspects of the Festival, are agreed in their dislike for and their opposition to the Sunday opening of the fun fair. That indicates a widespread and deep-seated objection to this proposal, and if this Amendment is rejected and the fun fair is opened on a Sunday, quite clearly, we face the possibility that large sections of the public will no longer give their support and their approval to the Festival. I say, therefore, that the proposal to open on Sundays is a very bad blow indeed to the success of the Festival generally.
    Every Member of the Committee will recognise the fact that has been brought forward in the discussion today, that there is a great deal of inconsistency and illogicality about the Sunday observance laws of this country. No time need be spent in developing that theme. It is obvious that it is so, and no one will attempt to deny it. But it is a fact that the present position of the Sunday observance laws of this country represent a compromise that has been worked out over a long period of our history between various competing factions and differing opinions, and that, like a great many comprises which are inconsistent and possibly illogical it is a compromise that probably represents the largest measure of agreement that can be secured among various sections of the public.
    What the Bill seeks to do is to disturb that plan of compromise carefully worked out down the years, and to disturb it in a way for which, I suggest, neither
    1028
    the Government nor Members of the House have any mandate at present. I would feel myself that that compromise, inconsistent and illogical as it may be, should not be disturbed at the behest of a Government whose only concern in this matter is to increase the gross receipts of the Festival of Britain account.
    I come now to what seems to me to be the greatest and strongest objection to the Sunday opening of the fun fair, that it strikes at the very purpose for which the Festival of Britain is being held. The issue with which we are dealing today is the fundamental question of what is the Festival of Britain, and what is the purpose that it is designed to achieve. I think it is agreed on both sides of the Committee, and by Members who do not agree on this particular issue, that the Festival of Britain is being held for the purpose of demonstrating to the world the achievements of the British race, and also for showing to people from other countries the British way of life. Whether Members like it or not, whether they agree with the Sunday observance laws of this country or not, it is a fact that down the long years of our history, Sunday has been observed in this country as a day apart, a day that is different from other days in the week.
    I am not arguing for the moment whether that view is right or wrong, but no one can deny that that view has been and is held by a great many people, that it is deeply rooted in the national life, in our traditions, in our institutions, and in the laws of this country. I suggest, therefore, that in a national festival, the purpose of which is to demonstrate the British way of life to people from other countries, it is undesirable and illogical to bring into being a state of affairs which differs from the normal law of the country, and which will create a special situation so far as this Festival is concerned which will not exist, apart from the passage of this Bill into law. That, in my judgment, militates against the purpose of the Festival, and it is one of the reasons why the Sunday opening of the fun fair should not be authorised by this Committee.
    7.45 p.m.
    Whether we like it or not, the fact stands in our history that, during the period of our greatest expansion as a

    1029
    nation and Empire, during the second half of the last century, when our prosperity, influence and prestige were reaching their peak, when the achievements of our Empire and its extent were reaching their greatest heights, the period was marked by rising moral and spiritual standards of life so far as the mass of the people of the country were concerned. It was a day in which, speaking generally, God and His Day were honoured by our people.
    During the first half of the present century, we have seen a decline in the fortunes of our country and Empire, and that decline has gone hand in hand with a decline, unfortunately, in the moral and spiritual standards observed by a great many of our people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Members may say "Nonsense," but I am putting forward the view I hold, and a great many Members have had an opportunity of putting forward views which differ from mine. It is my judgment that that is not an unfair description of the position. I believe that these two trends are very closely associated, and that the time of our greatest achievements, influence and prestige was the time when our religious observance and religious life were at their strongest and best. I do not believe that that is a false reading of the history of the past century.
    If ever there was a day in which the wisdom of a weekly day of rest and worship was clear, surely that day is now. Men and women are living today under the strain and stress of recent years; multitudes alive today have spent nearly the whole of their lives in an atmosphere of crises of one kind or another, and I should have thought that the case for maintaining as far as possible the observance of the Christian Sunday as a day of rest and worship and a time when men and women could take a detached, dispassionate and calm view of life and its deeper issues was probably stronger than it had ever been before. I hold that in taking a step which would weaken the observance by our people of the weekly day of rest we should be rendering a very great disservice to our day and generation and would be taking a step in a direction for which we should be greatly blamed by those who come after us.
    I believe that we should do well to decide this issue in the light of our own
    1030
    consciences. It is in the light and by the guidance of our own consciences that an issue of this kind ought to be determined by every Member of the Committee. It would be quite wrong for any of us to vote in this matter at the behest of groups within our constituencies, unless the view of those groups happens to coincide with our own view of the best interest of the country. It would be quite wrong for us to vote under the guidance of leaders of parties or of party Whips on an issue of this kind. I believe that if we vote to-night in the light of the need of the country at the present time and the need to maintain in the world those principles to which this nation has borne historic witness down the years, and also in the light of our own consciences, we shall come to the conclusion that the best interest of the nation will be served by the carrying of the Amendment and the defeat of the proposal to open the fun fair on Sundays.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am very grateful, Sir Charles, to have caught your eye, for this is essentially the kind of question upon which it is very difficult for a great many of us who have been very puzzled about this problem to cast a vote without having the opportunity of giving our reasons for doing so. I am particularly fortunate in being called immediately after the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), who said so many things with which I profoundly disagree, and began by saying that nothing could possibly have been worse for the Festival of Britain than the proposal to open the Festival Gardens and the amusement park on Sundays.
    In my opinion, nothing will prove to have been better for the Festival of Britain than the controversy which we have had today and the advertisement which it has given to the Festival. For the first time since the Bill was introduced people have begun to take a real interest in learning what the Festival of Britain is all about. Those who were looking forward to the amusement part of the Exhibition may have had some of their ardour dampened a little by the Attorney-General's statement of the many items to be excluded from the amusement park on Sundays.
    I also profoundly disagree with the general interpretation of the hon. Member for Wimbledon as to the course of history

    1031
    during the last century. However, I agree with him when he says that our conception of Sunday has played an important part in the development of our national way of life, and it is true that the Festival is intended primarily to be symbolic of our national customs. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman in that I do not believe that the opening of the Battersea Park Gardens, even with its amusement park in the centre of it, will vitiate in any way the kind of Sunday to which we have become accustomed during the last few decades in this country.
    Like all other hon. Members, I have received a great many letters on this subject. Islington happens to be, and has been for a long time, a stronghold of Nonconformity and it is a part of London where the Low Church influence and tradition in the Anglican confession is very pronounced. I disagree with some of the hard things said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), about the Lord's Day Observance Society. I have the most profound respect for the sincerely held convictions of the many people who have written to me from my constituency asking me to oppose the opening of the fun fair on Sundays, and it is because I do not agree with their opinions that I am anxious to give the reasons why I shall oppose the Amendment.
    For example, one correspondent pointed out, with great force, that foreigners from America or the Continent who come here appreciate our quiet, peaceful, if somewhat dull, way of spending a Sunday as compared with the Continental Sunday, and they assert that if we have a fun fair in Battersea Park it will destroy the kind of Sunday which is symbolic of our national life. I believe the reverse is the case. I do not believe that there will be any incongruity in a visitor from abroad going to Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's Cathedral on Sunday morning and going to Battersea Park, with the fun fair open, on Sunday afternoon.
    I am not impressed with the many arguments which have been addressed to the Committee on the ground that the liberty of the subject is involved. I do not believe that it is. I believe that the State has a right, as it has always had, to take a hand in deciding what shall and what shall
    1032
    not to be done on a Sunday. I am not supporting the opening of the fun fair on Sundays on the ground that it provides more liberty for some people. The argument about liberty and licence is quite irrelevant. The State has a duty, as it always has had, to legislate for Sunday observance, a duty exercised partly on religious grounds, partly on industrial grounds and partly—perhaps the most important of all—to secure the traditional kind of Sunday which we have inherited and to which we attach so much importance in the formation of our national characteristics. It is, I believe, for these reasons that the law prohibits a number of things on Sunday, such as the opening of theatres, professional football matches and professional cricket matches and, apart from minor exceptions, trading. It would be abhorrent to our national instincts if there were widespread trading on Sundays.
    That brings me to one of the points raised by hon. Members who support the Amendment. I have the greatest respect for their opinions when they say that the commercial aspect of the Sunday opening of the fun fair is something abhorrent to them, something which is pernicious and which in itself justifies our closing the fun fair on Sundays. I must confess I was troubled by that argument, because I agree that the commercial aspect of the fun fair is something which a great many people think quite sincerely is objectionable in itself.
    8.0 p.m.
    Any tendency to commercialise Sunday would be objectionable, but in that context I ask myself, and I ask the Sabbatarians who are supporting the Amendment: Is there not inevitably a good deal of minor trading on Sunday with which all Sabbatarians agree? Do not a great many of us, who are fortunate in having a motor car, now that petrol is off the ration, enjoy joy-rides in motor cars on Sunday? Do we object to going to the garage to buy petrol so that we can have that joy-ride? Is it not then hypocritical for us to deny to those who do not possess motor cars the opportunity to have their joy-rides in the dodgem cars on Sunday afternoon? And is the slight commercial element in that any more objectionable than the fact that garages are open for the sale of petrol on Sundays?

    1033
    May I also remind the earnest Sabbatarians who have written to me from my constituency, and who have spoken tonight, that apart from the primary duty of Christian toleration, which has been referred to by other hon. Members and which I will not repeat, there are fashions in Sabbatarianism as there are fashions in everything else, and that what the Sabbatarians thought so wrong and objectionable 20 years ago, they tolerate today? I am quite sure there will be another fashion in Sabbatarianism 10 or 20 years hence, more enlightened than that which prevails today.
    If the proposal to close the fun fair on Sunday afternoon is carried, I do not believe it will increase by one iota the cause of Christianity in this country. I do not believe that if we close the fun fair on a Sunday afternoon we shall in any degree promote attendance at church or a Sunday school. If I thought that by opening the fun fair we were desecrating the Sabbath in any way, or doing damage to the intangible values in our national life which we so rightly prize, I would support the Amendment. I attach great importance to this. I hope it will not go out from the Committee in any part of the Press that the issue we are debating tonight is an issue between Christianity and paganism. If we defeat the proposal of the hon. Member, as I hope we shall, I trust that nobody will interpret that vote as a victory for paganism over Christianity, and I hope nobody will interpret it as any part of the intention of those who oppose the Amendment to reduce or belittle the influence of Christianity in this country.
    I mention that because I am profoundly impressed by the number of clergymen who have written to me asking me to support my hon. Friend. Those hard working, zealous, deserving people take the view that if the Amendment is defeated it will be a setback to the cause of Christianity for which they are working and, as they think, are fighting a hard, uphill battle. That is an opinion we should respect, because I have every sympathy with the work they are doing and should hate them to feel discouraged in their work. It is for that reason that I am so anxious that if we defeat the Amendment the result of our vote should not be misinterpreted.
    I cannot profess to speak with any theological knowledge, but my profound
    1034
    conviction is that the cause of Christianity in this country, to which I attach great importance, is not in these days promoted so much by Sunday observance and ceremonial as by our social conduct, our social legislation and what we do. In the words of a Biblical text:
    "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
    I hope we shall defeat the Amendment.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The speech to which we have just listened seems to me to be the strongest case against this Amendment which I have heard, and I have heard all the speeches in this debate. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), unlike some other hon. Members, approached this problem much from the same general standpoint as I shall hope to approach it. None the less, I must differ from him as to the test to be applied to this matter.
    As I understood it, the hon. Gentleman said that the test he had in mind was—is a Sunday fun fair of this kind a way of spending Sunday afternoon of which we approve? I differ from him in regarding that as the test, and I suggest that hon. Members, who might in their personal capacities approve of themselves or of others spending a Sunday afternoon on these roundabouts, are not for that reason logically bound to oppose this Amendment. The test I should suggest as a more appropriate one for this Committee to apply to this issue is—is it right for the House of Commons specially to authorise privileges in this direction in connection with a national Festival?
    The hon. Member also referred to the commercial aspect, which he indicated was as distasteful to him in this connection as it is to me. We have heard very little so far of the commercial aspect and it would be right, before the Committee comes to a decision, that we should hear from the right hon. Gentleman what is this financial aspect. It has been argued by the gentlemen who have taken out the concession for this apparatus that they hope to receive one-third of their total takings on Sundays, and I understand that communications have passed between them and Festival Gardens Limited on these lines.
    I think we are entitled to know a little more about that, and in particular whether the negotiations, which must now be in an advanced stage, for taking up these concessions have proceeded on the basis

    1035
    of the fun fair being open on Sundays or of its not being open on Sundays. What weight it will carry with hon. Members is another matter, but that is the sort of information for which this Committee is entitled to ask before reaching a decision.
    Now may I deal with what I thought was the best argument of the Attorney-General on this issue, although it is true that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in form directing his argument to the Second Reading. He used an argument which shook me a little, namely, that it would be wrong for hon. Members, most of whom have better facilities for spending such leisure as they may have than most of their fellow citizens, to deny to those fellow citizens with less opportunities the opportunity of such entertainment as this.
    That was a powerful argument, and I ask the Committee to consider where that argument leads us. It leads us a long way beyond opening one fun fair in London for 20 Sunday afternoons next summer. It seems to me to lead logically to the authorisation of all forms of mass entertainment on Sundays: football matches, racing, and such other occupations as people may like; because, if we are forced by our desire not to deny to our less fortunate fellow subjects opportunities to entertain themselves at this fun fair on Sunday afternoons next summer, it seems to me inescapably to follow that we have equally no right to deny them at other times such other forms of entertainment as they may wish. Whatever the Attorney-General may say, that was the line of argument quite logically adopted by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) whose words I recall because they illustrated with complete frankness the direction in which we are being led.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham said on 23rd November:
    "Some hon. Members may say, 'But what about the need for a day of rest for the great mass of people?' I fully agree that 100 years ago, in the middle of the 19th century, in the heyday of capitalism, Sunday, as a full day of rest, was a very necessary institution, but we now have a five-day working week in general, and the same need for that day of rest is gone. Undoubtedly, it would be wise, when we make a change in the law, to rule out the possibility of people working seven days a week, but, in general, I think we now have a five-day week, and any variation from it should be settled by negotiation between
    1036
    the unions and the employers concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd Novmber, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 559.]
    That is a perfectly frank admission, as is the admission contained in the circular which was circulated to hon. Members by the Sunday Freedom Association, on which, I see, the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham is printed as an adviser; that is, the argument that there is basically no essential distinction between Sundays and other days of the week and that the necessities for the provision of rest can be settled by industrial negotiation.
    That is the direction in which, quite logically, the hon. Member for Dagenham has indicated that we are going. He welcomes that step because it is a step, in his view, in the right direction. But to other hon. Members who may be in some doubt whether there is any particular importance in a fun fair next summer on a limited number of occasions, that surely constitutes a warning of what, at any rate, some of the people who support this proposal quite clearly and frankly think.
    Another of the arguments of the Attorney-General was much less good and an argument which comes a little oddly from a holder of his great office. He said that the law on this subject was deplorable. No hon. Member would dispute that. He went on to suggest that it was not, and could not be, fully enforced. That would be a very good argument for a general amendment of the law or for its enforcement, but coming from the senior Law Officer of the Crown it seemed a peculiarly bad argument in favour of one special and temporary exception being made by Statute to a general state of the law which, in his own words, is deplorable.
    Good or bad, what it is sought to do by the Bill is to confer some special privileges upon those who will operate the fun fair. I would not venture into the question of how great and small are those privileges, because that would demand a knowledge of the law which I do not pretend to have, but it is obvious from the very fact that the Bill is being produced—indeed, it is the whole purpose of the Bill—that some special rights and immunities not enjoyed by others of His Majesty's subjects shall be conferred by a special enactment upon those who are to op crate the fun fair.

    1037
    However admirable the merits of the concern may be—and this body has certainly an eminent board of directors—I think it is wrong in principle to give special statutory immunities to one organisation while leaving everybody else, public and private authorities alike, exposed to a condition of the law which the principal Law Officer of the Crown rightly describes as deplorable.
    I should like to say a word on the subject of liberty, on which so much has been said this afternoon, so much, indeed, that one might almost parody a famous remark and observe: "Liberty, liberty, what nonsense has been talked in thy name!" It is not as simple as some hon. Members think merely to say "Let anybody do what he wants to do on a Sunday. Be tolerant—" as an hon. Member opposite said—"and do not interfere with others doing what they want to do," because it is impossible for people to do many things on a Sunday—and attending a great fun fair is one of them—without imposing duties and liabilities upon other people.
    The Attorney-General told us that some 500 or 600 people would be employed in the fun fair, but that is only the beginning. As hon. Members are aware, it has been the policy of London Transport on Sundays, particularly in the middle of the day, to run minimum services so that the maximum number of their staff shall have their Sundays at home. If great numbers, as is hoped, apparently, are to come to the Festival on a Sunday, then inevitably more transport will have to be provided and more transport workers will have to work. The same is true, of course, of catering, police duties, and so on.
    8.15 p.m.
    That means that some people will not have their Sundays at home. I am not going into the argument of whether they would do that willingly or unwillingly. The fact remains that there are many nuances between the two. A man may be told that he has the right to refuse to work on a Sunday, but he may know perfectly well that it would not benefit him with his employer to exercise that right. All hon. Members know of that kind of situation. Without suggesting that that will necessarily be so in many cases, a considerable number of people will have
    1038
    to engage in work which cannot conceivably be described as necessary.
    There are two objections, as I see it, to unnecessary Sunday labour. One is the religious one, which I will not labour save to point out that the quotation with which the Attorney-General sought to justify his argument was taken very much from its context. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
    "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath."
    It is worth recalling to the House that the context of that statement was not the provision of entertainment on the sabbath, but the provision of necessary nourishment for people hard at work and travelling to their work. Taken out of its context, therefore, that is a very misleading quotation. I do not, however, want to labour the religious point.
    The point I wish to press is the social one. The great value, from the social point of view, of Sunday is that every member of the family has the same day off; all members of the family can relax together. But if we get more and more people working on Sundays, then we shall do something to diminish inevitably the close unity of the family and, indeed, to deprive people of exactly that family Sunday together, about which the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) spoke in such moving terms on the Second Reading.
    Mr. Thurtle: The point which the hon. Member has just made about the desirability of keeping the family together is one of the strong arguments in favour of opening the fun fair on a Sunday, because that is the very day upon which the father, the mother and the children are most likely to be able to go together.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate the force of that intervention, which has the force which interventions by the hon. Member always have, but I ask him to consider this. What is proposed is that in one way or another a considerable number—far more than the 500 or 600 engaged in the fun fair—of our fellow citizens will have to work on Sunday; they will be denied the family Sunday together. Those other people to whom the hon. Member referred are not compelled to spend their Sunday together at the fun fair in Battersea Park. All the other activities at present available on

    1039
    Sundays are open to them; so, indeed, is their Sunday at home. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether we would not by this proposal be effectively denying that family Sunday to a certain section of people without assuring it to a single additional person.
    The great point on this matter is that we are discussing, not a commercial enterprise run by an enterprising firm of amusement contractors, but one of the features of what we are very rightly and regularly told by the Lord President of the Council is a national Festival, one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) rightly wished great success. When we are conducting an affair of that sort, concerned not only with England, but with the other parts of the United Kingdom, in many of which strong views are held, when it is being run as a national affair under the highest possible patronage, to be opened by no less a person than the Sovereign, it is surely right that we should seek to apply far higher standards of morality and conduct than we are entitled to exact from other and less impressive enterprises.
    In particular it seems desperately wrong that in the conduct of such a national enterprise we should do something offensive—rightly or wrongly offensive—to the consciences of a considerable section of our fellow citizens. I do not care, for this purpose, whether that section is a majority or a minority. It is an appreciable section entitled to have its conscientious and religious views respected by national authorities in the organisation of a national Festival.
    We have heard that, on this matter at least, all who have claimed to speak in the name of the Christian Churches of this country have asked that this particular fun fair be not permitted to open on Sundays. We have had considerable expressions of opinion from different quarters of this Committee, and it would seem that we would be marring this Festival at its beginning if we were to use a majority in this Committee, if there is a majority for it in this Committee, to enact something in connection with this national Festival which, rightly or wrongly, a considerable number of our fellow citizens regard as morally wrong. We should be doing great harm to the
    1040
    national character of the Festival and unnecessarily offending deeply held, honestly and sincerely held, religious beliefs. For that reason, whatever my personal feelings may be, I feel bound to go into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment.
    Mr. Gooch: I am glad to have the opportunity of stating to the Committee where I stand in relation to this question of the Sunday opening of the fun fair. I wholeheartedly support the Amendment. I do not think it is so much a question of denying an opportunity for people as providing a facility; and in taking the stand that I take on this question, I am not transgressing in the slightest degree the policy of my party, as this was never any part of the policy of the Labour Party or of the Labour Government. I am certain that it would mean opening a section of the Festival of Britain Exhibition on a Sunday which the people as a whole have never asked for and, to my mind, do not want. The Sunday opening of the amusements park was not a part of the election programme of this party in the earlier part of this year, nor does it form the slightest part of the Labour Party's policy as a whole.
    Much has been said about the fact that we ought not to take so much notice of those who write to us on various matters. I had made up my mind on the line I would take in this matter long before the first of my constituents wrote to me on it. I go further and add that, while I am not unduly influenced by people who write to me on various matters, I am prepared to, and do, take into consideration views expressed to me by many scores of constituents on the question of the Sunday opening of the fun fair. Most of the communications I have received from constituents have been utterly opposed to the proposal.
    Sunday is becoming more and more secularised and I am sure we are not serving the best interests of the people by resorting to a procedure of this kind. The preservation of Sunday is to my mind of infinite importance to the highest interests of the country. To many people, of whom I am one, Sunday is not just another day. I regard Sunday as a very different day. There has been much talk about exercising one's conscience in a matter of this kind. I do so, and I do not subscribe to the extreme

    1041
    views expressed by the Lord's Day Observance Society. That is one thing. But another fact is that I do give heed to the feeling of humble fellow-Methodists who live in the villages which comprise, to a large extent, the Division which I have the honour to represent in the House. They want the sanctity of the Sabbath preserved. The recognition of Sunday as a day of worship has become part of the British way of life. We want to show visitors from abroad the best of our British life, and I am sure that the opening of the fun fair on Sunday would not be a ceremony which would impress visitors coming to see us.
    I wish to refer to views expressed by two rather useful and influential organisations whose views have been sent to me. The Congregational Union of the county in which I live, Norfolk, raise three points which I think are very pertinent. They want me to oppose the Sunday opening first, because the opening of the amusements park on Sunday would cause people to be employed unnecessarily on Sundays and thus prevent them from having the opportunity of attending public worship. The second point is that the effect on foreign visitors would not enhance the prestige of our country abroad. Their third point is that there was no such opening of the amusements ac the 1851 Exhibition or at the Wembley Exhibition in 1925. [Interruption.] This is an expression of opinion I have received, and I am passing it to the Committee.
    Very definite views are held outside to which I am prepared to pay heed. In connection with this proposal, although they may be a little off the rails, they express a point of view which appeals to me and which I support. I think the Sunday opening of the fun fair would be contrary to the best traditions of British life and I certainly do not think the Labour Party should go out of its way to provide these facilities.
    To sum up, I will give the Committee a few of the views of the members of the Social and Civic Commission of the Norwich Council of Christian Congregations. They consider that the Sunday opening of the fun fair would be wrong because, first, it would divert people from their primary Christian duty of Sunday worship. It would do so because of the employment of thousands of transport
    1042
    and other workers on what should be a day of rest. It would probably lead to a further demand for a regular opening of similar fun fairs which ordinarily remain closed. They further point out that these amusements are not of any cultural value and do not convey the physical benefit derived from playing Sunday games.
    A course of action which is morally undesirable remains morally undesirable even if it is sanctioned by Parliament, and the financial success or failure of the Festival is irrelevant to the other issues involved. If, as they understand, the principal purpose of the Festival is to demonstrate the British way of life to the world, any arrangements which conflict with the traditional British observance of Sunday are contrary to that purpose of the Festival.
    8.30 p.m.
    It is because I believe wholeheartedly in the views which I have quoted that I shall support this Amendment. I am not actuated in the slightest degree by opposition to or criticism of the Festival of Britain, which I shall do my little best to make a success. I wish the Festival well, but I am certain that if there is associated with the Festival the Sunday opening of the fun fair, it will cause a great deal of offence to a considerable number of people who would ordinarily have wished the Festival well.
    Earl Winterton: I should like to apologise to the Committee in advance, through you, Sir Charles, for intervening, because by an unwritten rule of the House to which the Chair always has regard, Privy Councillors are usually called. I might succeed in interesting or at least in not boring the Committee if, in a speech of about 10 minutes' duration, I try to sum up some of the conclusions which I have reached from listening to the whole of the debate. I shall greatly shock both supporters and opponents of this particular Amendment by repeating what I said in an interruption—that I have yet to learn that the country as a whole is really interested one way or the other.
    This House is always interested in any religious question. Although it would be out of order to make more than a passing reference to the matter, at the time of the Prayer Book controversy

    1043
    both Tories and Socialists were almost on the point of fisticuffs, shouting and yelling, not at their normal opponents, but at each other about the matter. One might say, and I hope it will not be regarded as a rude remark—and I feel sure that the Home Secretary who, like me, is interested in history will agree—that the fires of Smithfield burn atavistically in Members' minds on an occasion of this kind. It is the age-old fight between Cavaliers and Roundheads.
    I proudly claim to be the descendant of the first Attorney-General in the Government of Charles II, who was afterwards Speaker of this House. Therefore, Cavalier blood boils in my veins. To be more serious and controversial—and I am afraid this remark may hurt some—this is largely a fight between Protestants, using that word in its broadest sense, and the Catholic Church.
    Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Might I ask the noble Lord whether the Attorney-General to whom he referred was the Attorney-General who prosecuted the seven bishops?
    Earl Winterton: My ancestor prosecuted the regicides, and used language that even I have never used in the House.
    I would seriously attempt to give a resume of the arguments given on both sides, as the result of listening to which, I have decided, though not with any very great enthusiasm, to support the Clause as it stands. It is true to say that Sunday is increasingly becoming a day of recreation instead of a day of rest and of public and private worship. All of us who are connected with any church must naturally regret that, whatever views we may have about the Clause. It has been urged, and can truthfully be urged, on behalf of those who support the Amendment and oppose the Clause drafted, that by permitting this opening we are merely adding to that increasing tendency.
    I am also influenced in favour of the Amendment because the Advisory Committee of Christian Churches is opposed to the opening of this section of the Festival of Britain. I am also influenced by the argument which has been made with great eloquence by speakers on both sides of the Committee, that many religious people are seriously offended by
    1044
    the idea of the opening of this section of the Festival.
    The pros and cons here are not very strong, because, as has been admirably pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), how far can we go in saying that we must always have regard to the conscience of a minority? If people really had regard for that there would be no Sunday cinemas, and there would be no music in the parks. At the time when music in the parks was started, the proposal was bitterly opposed; there was an angry debate in the House during which the Government were accused of godlessness.
    This Committee and the House, of which it is a part, has never said that people should only have regard to the religious scruples of a minority. I have yet to learn that the majority of the Christian churches—using that term in its widest sense—would be opposed to this opening. After all, there are many like myself who are connected with the church who do not hold that view. I am also influenced by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who are associated with the Festival of Britain and who are in favour of the Amendment.
    I have to admit, as a loyal member of the Church of England, that in this, as in so many other matters, the Church of England is divided. There is one prelate in Battersea itself who has said that he is in favour of the amusement park. It would be grossly out of order if I attributed to this Committee even the faintest symptom of what Cecil Rhodes once described as the "unctuous rectitude" of the British people. Is there not something really supremely ridiculous in everybody getting so hot and bothered over this issue when the cinemas are open in London on Sundays, when dirt track racing goes on and when every sort of amusement is permitted?
    The Attorney-General, in his most eloquent Second Reading speech, referred to the utterly anomalous position of the law as it exists at present. Perhaps whoever follows me will answer this question: If it is not morally wrong or contrary to

    1045
    the Christian religion for cinemas to be open on Sundays, why is it morally wrong for the amusement park to be open? Perhaps a subsequent supporter of the Amendment will tell us that he is in favour of closing all cinemas. He would, of course, be perfectly entitled to say that. Is it not the most fantastic cant and humbug to say, as we say in this country, and as the law says, that it is all right to have any form of entertainment on Sundays which is legal on week days provided that one does not have to pay at the gate? Is not that an instance of British hypocrisy?
    As the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), said, we must do everything in accord with the best traditions of Britain. Surely it is not in accord with the best traditions of Britain that the law should be in the ridiculous state in which it is in today. I should like an opponent of this Clause to take up this point. Many of my hon. Friends, as well as many hon. Gentlemen opposite, do not like the Clause because, in their opinion, the Christian religion is in danger. Presumably they intend to take immediate steps to stop boating in Battersea Park on Sundays. One has to pay to get a boat and people are employed to look after the boats. In addition, tennis is played on Sundays and in that case people are employed.
    If the Christian religion is in such danger, I say to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee—in all friendliness—that they should take immediate action. Some people may say that, after all, boating and tennis does not employ 500 people. There may be something in that argument. I am sure that all hon. Members speak with the utmost genuineness, but I ask them to think of the enormous number of people employed in public transport. They talk as if nobody went in a bus on Sundays. I am afraid I am being a little controversial, but I very much hope that any hon. Gentleman opposite who will vote for the Amendment will immediately write to the Prime Minister and ask if the Sabbath is not broken by having Sunday speeches. I am sure that my hon. Friends who are in favour of the Amendment will support me in that in every possible way. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman looking at me in that grave way.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I am trying to avoid continually laughing at what the noble Lord is saying.
    Earl Winterton: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I should have thought that that particular argument would have appealed to him.
    I must say one word in denigration of the body, which has been referred to in previous speeches, which, whatever hon. Gentlemen may say, is very largely behind the opposition to this Clause—the Lord's Day Observance Society. I would describe it—and I do not wish to attack the sincerity of people who support it—as outrageous that it should claim to speak for all Christians, when, in fact, it is quite obvious that what it is in favour of is the Jewish Sabbath.
    I could go on if I wished to do so, and quote Scripture. I could quote some very wounding references in the Bible about the sort of attitude which the Lord's Day Observance Society takes up, but I will say nothing more derogatory about it except that no one has done more mischief to the cause of true Christianity in this country than Mr. "Misery" Martin, with the single dishonourable exception of the Dean of Canterbury.
    I would end on this not—a more serious note. I make no excuse for partly guying this discussion, because—and I say this in all seriousness—I cannot believe that the cause of Christianity, which is most sincerely held in many parts of the Committee by those of us who are deeply divided in our political views, will be either accelerated or retarded by the opening of this place on Sundays. I suggest to the Committee that to say that Christianity, because of this Clause, is in danger is merely doing damage to the true cause of Christianity. For these reasons, I shall therefore vote for the Clause.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: There must have been few debates in the House of Commons which provided more entertainment and added less to the total sum of knowledge existing in the House than this debate. I spent this morning reading carefully through the debate on the Festival of Britain last Thursday, and, so far as I can see, with the single honourable exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), there

    1047
    have been no new arguments advanced either in favour of or against the Sunday opening of any part of the Festival.
    Indeed, the only thing we have had forced upon us is the almost complete impossibility of being consistent or logical when we start talking about a subject of this kind. I agree with a very large measure of what the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has just said. It is impossible to be consistent, it is impossible to be logical, and it is impossible that any of us can do more than collect the voices of our own consciences, the voices of our arguments, and, indeed, the voices of our own prejudices.
    8.45 p.m.
    It is the sum total of those three factors working upon us which will lead us to the conclusion we shall express in the Division tonight. It is, perhaps, a little unfair and a sidetracking of this issue for hon. Members to seek to give the impression constantly that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), and those supporting him are acting in the spirit of strict sabbatarianism. My hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that that was not his approach, and I do not think it is the approach of any of us who are supporting him today. Incidentally, in mentioning the strict sabbatarians, we should pay tribute to the considerable distance they have travelled towards a more liberal interpretation of the Sabbath than would have operated a few years ago. In the attitude embraced by the Council of Churches, we see a good deal of progress towards a more tolerant attitude.
    The fact remains that, whatever we think of this problem, it is a very real moral issue to many people. I think the noble Lord the Member for Horsham was right when he said that he did not believe half the people of this country were interested one way or another. None of us knows whether a majority or a minority favours Sunday opening. None of us knows how this is going to affect our own political fortunes. There are bound to be people who will pick upon whatever we do and use it in an attempt to discredit us in our constituencies.
    But whether there is a majority or a minority in favour does not affect the moral issue. There are people in this
    1048
    country who object very strongly on moral grounds to the opening of a fun fair on Sundays; yet we are being asked tonight to do something in their name of which they disapprove on moral grounds. Whatever our individual views, I think it is wrong that the House of Commons, through an organisation sponsored by the Government, should be asking the people to support something of which many disapprove on moral grounds. What is more, they are being asked to pay for any deficit which results from a thing of which they disapprove. That seems to me to be bad morality and bad democracy.
    I submit that there is a very great difference between allowing existing fun fairs to continue and setting up an entirely new, additional fun fair in the name of the people of this country, many of whom are going to object to its establishment. It is not really fair, nor relevant, for the noble Lord the Member for Horsham to draw a comparison between this particular issue and the issue of cinemas and of bands in the parks.
    Earl Winterton: The hon. Member was not in the House at that time. There was exactly the same atmosphere in the House over the Bill dealing with cinemas. The House was divided, not on party grounds, but on the grounds of the alleged interest or otherwise of religion. It was exactly the same case.
    Mr. Greenwood: I cannot be answerable for the point of view expressed then. I can only put to the Committee what seems to me to be a reasonable deduction from the state of affairs at the moment. We have cinemas open on Sundays, but they are not being run by His Majesty's Government. They are being run by private enterprise concerns, and their attitude in that respect is no concern of mine, nor indeed of many people in this country.
    Mr. Paton: Is it not the case that Sunday cinemas operate only with the express sanction of the House of Commons and on conditions laid down by the House?
    Mr. Greenwood: That is perfectly true. On the other hand, there is a great deal of influence and power still reposing in the hands of the local authorities.

    1049
    That brings me to the point the noble Lord the Member for Horsham made about bands in the parks. That is an example of municipal enterprise. Local councils are nearer to the population and more sympathetic to local demands and prejudices, and they are more likely to take a proper view of what the people in the locality really want.
    We have heard a great deal in this debate about tolerance. Unfortunately, most of the hon. Members who have been talking about tolerance have been trying to create the impression that those of us who support this Amendment are anxious to defy the view of the majority of the population. I say to hon. Members that it is easy to be tolerant towards the majority. If hon. Members are right in saying that the majority of people want this fun fair, nothing could be easier than to be tolerant towards the majority of the people. The real test of democracy is whether we are going to be tolerant to the point of view of the minority. That is why I believe that we who support this Amendment are doing so in the full interests of democracy and indeed are protecting the liberty of the subject.
    Mr. Wyatt: If a majority of the Committee vote for the Amendment, will my hon. Friend say that the minority view should be respected and that the fun fair should therefore be opened on Sundays?
    Mr. Greenwood: That is quite different. That would be taking positive action to infringe the rights of the majority, whereas I support negative action to preserve the liberties which a minority are enjoying at present.
    I want to develop that point by going on to what I believe to be the amenity aspect of the problem. I am fortunate enough to live within 150 yards of Hampstead Heath which, I suppose, is as famous for its fun fair as is the constituency of the hon. Member for Black-pool, North (Mr. Low). I am very well aware of the crowds which go to the fun fair on Hampstead Heath every Saturday before a Bank Holiday. It is a good sight to see them. They go there full of fun and pleasure. They have a thoroughly enjoyable time, and I like the general atmosphere of cheerful vulgarity which pervades Hampstead on the Saturday before a bank holiday. But how
    1050
    pleased we are, those of us who live in Hampstead, when Sunday comes along and the fun fair closes down, when the crowds disappear, the noises disappear and the smell of trampled grass disappears, and the heath once again begins to look a place of beauty.
    I cannot help thinking that there must be people in Battersea who feel exactly as I do upon this issue. I know perfectly well that I would fight to the death to prevent the Government from starting a fun fair on Hampstead Heath which was going to be open seven days a week; and I am not prepared to insist on people in Battersea having to put up with something which I would not be prepared to put up with in the Borough of Hampstead. I do not know whether the majority of people in Battersea want it or not. It may well be that the majority of the people do want the fun fair to be open all the week round. It may be that the constituents of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North, want a fun fair to be open all the week round. Most of the people in Blackpool have a vested interest in the fun fair, and unless they have a vested interest in it I cannot think of any other reason for living in Blackpool.
    May I draw this parallel? A year ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), I spent a week in a Butlin's camp. The whole of the time the entire place was a riot of noise, with loud speakers blaring every weekday and every Sunday as well. I imagine that as Mr. Butlin is such a successful proprietor of these establishments, at any rate in this country, he is a pretty good judge of what the people of this country want in the way of recreation. All I know is that I personally should object very much to having to put up with that sort of thing seven days a week. I have no doubt that, although the bulk of the people in Battersea may want it, there is bound to be a small minority of people in Battersea who will object strongly to it, and it is our duty to protect the rights of that small minority.
    May I put another point on that? For the Government to come along and create a new fun fair, in an area which may or may not want it, is a very different thing from having the 57 fun fairs which exist today. For the Government to do so would be a course of action, it seems to

    1051
    me, which might lay itself open to the very gravest abuses and infringements of the rights of the individual.
    My concluding point is this. Those of us who support the Amendment are trying to protect the liberty of the people and not trying to deprive people of liberty which they already possess. We are, indeed, preventing the infringement of the existing rights of a sturdy minority of the people of this country.
    Mr. Hollis: I hope the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and I know one another well enough for me to congratulate him on his speech, even when it has not been a maiden speech. In doing so, however, I hope I shall be excused the traditions laid down for maiden speeches by commenting on some of the things he said. This is no place for an hon. Member to try to impose his religious opinions upon another hon. Member or upon anybody else, but there are two things which I should like to say upon the religious aspect.
    First, on the Sabbatarian argument, there are two quite different principles. I do not say that they are contradictory to one another but they are quite different. There are those who object to people working on a Sunday and there are those who object to people playing on a Sunday. So far as those who object to people working on a Sunday are concerned, all that I think it is necessary for me to say—or all you are likely to allow me to say on this Amendment, Major Milner—is that that is not the subject which we are discussing today, because the House has already given the Bill a Second Reading and, rightly or wrongly, has decided to allow an extension of work on Sundays.
    It is perfectly true that if it could be shown that there are some people who will be called upon to work in this fun fair and who will have to violate their consciences to do so, or who did not have proper leisure, that would be a matter of profound concern to us, but no jot or tittie of evidence has been brought forward to show that any such person exists and we can but deal with the point, therefore, in the immortal words of Betsy Prig in Martin Chuzzlewit, "Sarah Gamp, you cannot legislate about a woman until you prove that she exists."
    1052
    We are not concerned with the question of work on Sunday. We are concerned with whether or not it is wrong for people to play on Sunday and, on that point, I would strongly reinforce the words which the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) used in his speech. What has not been sufficiently emphasised in this debate is that there is no Christian who does not think that Sunday is a special day, a different day. We are all agreed on that, but there is a profound difference among Christians about the way in which it ought to be different from other days.
    Although I speak with the most profound respect for the Puritan tradition, which has been so strong in these islands, I think we must face the fact that the vast majority of Christians throughout Christian history, and the vast majority of Christians in these islands, have not held Sabbatarians' views about Sunday at all. On the contrary, they have thought that Sunday was a day upon which one should worship but, also, that it was peculiarly dedicated to play. The Anglian Church was strongly anti-Sabbatarian until right at the end of the 18th century and the Sabbatarian tradition is a very modern thing in this country.
    I do not say one word of criticism about it, but I want simply to present the fact that there are these two great Christian traditions and not merely one in this country. Again, when hon. Members speak of the effect of Sabbatarian conduct upon character, I think we are entitled to ask upon whose character, because that seems to me to make a great deal of difference. I confess that the Puritan tradition is not my tradition, yet I would frankly admit that the effect on the character of a man who voluntarily imposes upon himself the Puritan practice and habit of life and, incidentally, among other things the Puritan habit of Sabbatarian observance, is an effect that is strengthening and edifying.
    But the effect on the character of what may call the post-Puritan person, who no longer accepts the whole Puritan code, who reluctantly has imposed upon him exemptions from pleasure of which he does not approve, is a totally different one. So I would say that the religious picture which we have and have had is a very different picture from that what

    1053
    many hon. Members have painted, and that the only way in which we can reasonably deal with this problem is upon the basis of liberty.
    9.0 p.m.
    We have heard a good deal about the British way of life, but we have had no definition of what the British way of life may be. A definition of the British way of life which does not include a concept of liberty seems to me to be a very strange sort of definition of the British way of life. There are two religious traditions in England, and England needs both of them very badly. England, fortunately, can use both of them, because she has also a great tradition of tolerance and liberty, which I hope she will ever respect.
    I must confess that I have been a little disturbed throughout these debates when again and again an hon. Member who has appealed to the cause of liberty apparently has been subjected to jeers by another hon. Member, as though there were something ridiculous in it, or as though it were almost sharp practice. If we do appeal to the traditions of the past, I should prefer to appeal to words written of a famous statesman whose proudest epitaph was:
    "Not under you did England laugh at liberty."
    I do not think we should treat such an appeal to liberty as ridiculous in considering the problem, because, paradoxically, it is simply because it is so trivial that it is so very important. If we are not to allow an adult citizen to decide for himself whether he should throw a hoopla ring over a shaving stick on a Sunday afternoon, what are we to allow him to decide? If we are not to allow an adult citizen to decide for himself whether or not to do that, what is the good of hon. Members opposite talking about the loss of liberty in conscription or of hon. Members on this side talking about the loss of liberty under the tyranny of a closed shop?
    I have respect for the rights of the minority, but it is a curious and new principle of democracy, as stated by the hon. Member for Rossendale, that we must do what the minority want just because they are a minority, that the minority must always get their way at the expense of the majority, and that because most of the people want to have fun fairs open they should, therefore, be
    1054
    shut. I hope that the deliberations in this Chamber are not to be carried forward on that principle—if they are the Lord President had better vacate for the moment his place on the Front Bench, although he might be back before very long. However, it does seem to me that this is a free country and that it tends to remain a free country, and that in considering how we should resolve a problem like this we ought at least to have a bearing in favour of liberty. The burden of proof must at least lie on those who would violate it. There must be particular reasons.
    There are two reasons, it is said, why we should not find it necessary to open the fun fair on Sundays. There is the argument that it would be a physical nuisance interfering with amenities of people in the neighbourhood. I need not go through that argument again, because I think it has been rather convincingly shown in our debates that the fun fair will not have the effects that, according to the hon. Member for Rossendale, are produced on Hampstead Heath; and he apparently lives very much nearer to the jollifications on Hampstead Heath than any citizen will be living to the jollifications at Battersea.
    There is the more important question: whether it is what I may call a moral nuisance, whether it is a great affront to the conscience and moral sentiments of millions of our fellow citizens. A number of hon. Members have made that claim. I do not for one moment dispute their sincerity, or that that is a point of view that we have to consider. Again, I would say, first, that we have to consider that there are not one but two traditions. I think that there is the tradition of freedom, and it is surely also an affront to millions of our citizens if there is an unnecessary interference with freedom, and I do not see why those people, too, should not be considered.
    Listening to some of the speeches—I will not say in the Committee—and some of the arguments on this subject one might imagine that such a thing as a Sunday fun fair has never been seen in this country before, and that it is now being introduced by the Bill for the first time. That, of course, is not the situation. What is the situation? I must say that this weighs with me almost more strongly than anything else when con-

    1055
    sidering how deep is this moral affront. As far as I know, during the whole course of sabbatarian legislation introduced in this House, no one has ever suggested that fun fairs on Sunday as such should be made illegal.
    Certainly, during my very short political career I have never heard an hon. Member ask why these fun fairs were allowed to continue, or give notice to initiate an Adjournment debate about it. I have never heard anyone ask a question about it at a political meeting. Until this matter arose I have never heard the suggestion, in one form or another, that it is a monstrous thing that fun fairs should be allowed to go on. Therefore, with all respect, I cannot feel that the conscience of the British public can be so tender on this point, which, until the other day, it has not dreamt of mentioning.
    There is the very important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), with his characteristic force and eloquence, that it is not so much fun fairs that are objected to as Government-sponsored fun fairs. My hon. Friend asked, if I took down his words aright: Is it right for the House of Commons especially to authorise fun fairs? I am not quite sure that I would put the point in that way. The Attorney-General showed in his speech the other day that the Government are not authorising something which has previously been thought wrong, but something which previously, by a pure accident, may have happened to be illegal, and that seems to me a very different thing. Anyway, the argument whether the Government ought or ought not to be allowed to sponsor fun fairs can only have any validity if it be first admitted that Sunday fun fairs are evil and undesirable things, and it would be better that people should not go to them.
    If hon. Members are prepared to make that first admission there is something in the argument that perhaps private enterprise can do these things, but it is a disgraceful thing that the Government should do it—but that is only if that first admission is made. If, as I hold, it is a perfectly reasonable thing for persons to go to fun fairs, the argument has no validity. Incidentally, I am the
    1056
    first Member who has spoken in these debates who has confessed that it is extremely likely that he himself will go on the roundabouts. Others have been at great pains to explain that whatever happens they will not go near them. The Lord President and I are apparently the only two who will go along. Supposing we make this first admission, the argument to which I refer has some validity; but if that admission is not made, as I do not make it—that these things on Sunday afternoons are themselves in any way wrong—it cannot become particularly undesirable for the Government to have some connection with them.
    It may not matter whether I think it is wrong. What do the British people think? Why have the citizens of Westernsuper-Mare and Colney Beach not been protesting throughout these years at the wickedness permitted in their midst? Why have they not demanded that these fun fairs be closed? Why has it suddenly become wicked when it is done in Battersea when it has not been wicked in Weston-super-Mare and Colney Beach? For the life of me, I cannot see any glimmer of logic on the side of the supporters of the Amendment. I therefore strongly hope that hon. Members will think carefully before they send out to the world the message that this committee thinks liberty ridiculous.
    Lieut.-Commander Baldock: A great many highly principled speeches have been made in this debate, both from the constitutional and from the moral point of view. I shall keep the Committee for but a few moments in asking them to consider the purely practical point of view concerned with the people of Battersea, a borough in which I spend a considerable amount of my time, and with the views of whose citizens I believe I am reasonably well versed. The point has already been made by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) that to live near one of these fun fairs at the time of its active season is rather an unpleasant experience. It is not just a question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has said, of the noise made by these mechanically-propelled amusement devices; it is the concourse of people going to and from the centre of amusement which would be the most disturbing factor for the people who have to live in the vicinity.
    Mr. Carson: Most of us who represent constituencies which have amusement parks in the vicinity have not had, in the last six years, as I mentioned on the Second Reading, one single complaint about noise, and as Members of Parliament we would have had complaints if people had been seriously inconvenienced.
    Lieut.-Commander Baldock: I think that the answer may be that those people who choose to live in centres where it is accepted that these amusements are perhaps the principal form of industry in the town, go there with that experience in mind; but those who choose to live in Battersea had no conception, when they took up their residence there, that they were to have this form of possible nuisance imposed upon them. I do not think that it is reasonable to have floods of people streaming past one's doors the whole of Sunday, as well as on the other six days of the week with cars parked all the way down the street, and all the other nuisances that will occur, particularly towards the closing time of the entertainments.
    I think that the individuals responsible for making a reasonable contribution to the success of the Festival of Britain on six days a week should be allowed the seventh day on which to rest themselves. This is not the only fun fair in the country. Those people who wish to come to London to see the Festival can choose a week day to do so, and those who want to go to a fun fair on Sundays can choose some other place. I think that it is only reasonable and just that the opinions of the people of Battersea should be considered on this occasion.
    The Lord President a the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): It is not my intention to speak on one side or the other of the controversy. I think that on the Second Reading I put the pros and cons perfectly fairly. I would not expect the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), to agree with me, because he finds it extremely difficult to be impartial about anything. I took enormous trouble and checked matters with people on both sides of the controversy, and I want only to say a word or two about the provisions which we have made so far as noise is concerned. I do not wish to advise the Committee one way or the other as to how they should
    1058
    vote on the Amendment which is before us.
    The question of possible noise nuisance naturally occurred to us and I should like to assure the Committee that it is still open to them to take this factor into account, for what it is worth, in considering the merits of the case. We have taken every possible step we could to prevent nuisance from that angle. As I said on Second Reading, in the siting of the amusement park, we have kept it, as far as we could, from built-up property and from dwelling houses. The nearest dwelling-house will be about 300 yards away.
    I ought to inform the Committee that in the arrangements made, apart from the choice of location, Festival Gardens Limited, possesses, through their agreement with each of the amusement caterers, the most drastic powers of control in a clause which they have inserted in the contracts between them and the amusement caterers. This point is very naturally worrying some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), who lives near that very happy open space Hampstead Heath, which is the centre of some activity now and again. The contract provides that the licensees are not to have hurdy-gurdies and that sort of thing. It reads:
    "The licensee shall not carry on the licensee's business in such manner as in the opinion of the Company to cause any annoyance or inconvenience to the public or residents in the neighbourhood or the Company or any other licensee of the Company and shall not use any machine, article or thing in connection with the licensee's business which by reason of wear and tear or other cause emits undue noise and shall not use any musical instruments and amplifiers or other sound-emitting devices unless so specified in Part II of the First Schedule hereto except the music or other sound broadcast or diffused by the Company from loud speakers placed by the Company on the plot or elsewhere in the gardens."
    9.15 p.m.
    The Company have the matter well under control, and amplifiers and mechanical devices for the emission of music cannot be used, and I am advised that the Company will exercise every care in this matter. From my own experience in Scandinavia, I know it is quite possible to have a perfectly happy amusement park without any of these aids, which diminish the enjoyment of

    1059
    the fair rather than increase it. I thought it was right for the Committee to have before it the clause in the contract between the Company and the licensees who will actually operate the adventitious items in the amusement park.
    I merely intervene on that one point, and having intervened and having put the facts in answer to many questions, it is for the Committee in due course to make up their mind on the issue.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have had from the Lord President of the Council the factual position very clearly set out, and no doubt the utmost care will be taken, as is implicit in the Bill, that offence should not be given. But what is also troubling the Committee is the general issue, and I feel that the Committee has approached the moment for a decision. I do not know whether that is shared universally, but this question has been very thoroughly discussed, and I do not think that we shall get much further by putting the pros and cons across a table to one another.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has given careful study to this matter from every point of view, and has come down, on the whole, in favour of the Clause—that is to say, in favour of the fun fair and against the Amendment. He spoke as one with Cavalier blood boiling in his veins, and with the tradition of black Protestantism strongly present in his mind. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) and I—I speak for myself, because there is no question of any Member on the Opposition Front Bench giving any lead to the party on this matter, as it is one for individual decision—have decided against the proposal, and we shall support the Amendment.
    There are three points upon which we must make up our minds. There is, first, the moral issue, which, in spite of the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) is a matter on which some people feel very keenly. Then there is the further point that the House has pushed these people along a path, which they do not wish to go. It has decided that the Festival is to be opened on Sunday. It is further decided that the Gardens are to be open
    1060
    on Sundays. I ask whether it is wise to push the matter to a point which completely satisfies one side, but, for that very reason, grates more and more upon the other. If a point of tolerance has to be considered, this is to strike where one side gets the most of what it wants as against one getting all and the other getting nothing.
    Secondly, there is the issue of what one might call "good manners." It was put strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Noblesse oblige. It is being done by the Government. This is not a case of private enterprise of one kind or another. The Festival is being opened by our Sovereign; we are at home to all the world. It is wise that we should avoid giving offence. We all enjoy hearing the radio but we know that it is an offence to turn one's loud-speaker full on and to leave one's window open and to inflict upon other people a programme which one may enjoy. "Good manners" is another thing which the Committee should take seriously into consideration.
    The last point concerning what one might call the "day of rest." I believe that that cannot be too strongly stressed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham suggested that it would be a bad thing to have speeches on Sunday. I can only say that as long as one party in the State insists on speaking on Sunday I am sure that the other party need have no fear of it—
    Earl Winterton: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and gallant Friend, but that is not what I said. I did not object to speeches on Sunday. I said that any opponent of this Clause who supported the Amendment was presumably opposed to speeches on Sunday, which is quite a different thing.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I apologise to my right hon. Friend if I have badly interpreted what he said. I am taking the general point as to whether there should or should not be a day of rest, and, in particular, a day of rest for politicians. I cannot say too strongly how deeply I feel that there should be a day of rest for politicians. It comes home to every single one of us that, although there is no actual compulsion to carry out political activities on Sunday, we all know the pressure

    1061
    which is brought to bear on us, which is very difficult to resist. On the one side we have more or less been able to resist that pressure by insisting upon what one can only call "a taboo." But taboos are of great benefit and of great merit. If we break through this tradition we weaken that taboo, and the further we break it the more likely we are to get not a five-day week but a seven-day week.
    That a civilisation without a rhythm, a mechanical civilisation which can run seven days a week, a civilisation without a definite break should arise, is a danger. We in this House take a good deal of trouble about formality and try rigidly to observe what may appear to be undesirable and unnecessary rules. We put Mr. Speaker in a special dress and pay the utmost attention to him, we carry out all sorts of apparently archaic codes and devices, we have a carpet with a red line in it in case hon. Members thrust at each other with swords when not a single hon. Member carries a sword now—although it is still very desirable to keep hon. Members a reasonable distance apart from each other. If we break the traditions of our own people, danger will arise.
    We are being asked at any rate to infringe such a tradition tonight. I trust that it will not be infringed. It is at least a respectably old tradition in this country that a day of rest, hedged about with a number of restrictions, should be observed on Sunday. I quite agree that it is not the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the Jewish day; it begins on a Friday night and stops on a Saturday night, and it has sanctions far more severe than any we wish to apply here. But the tradition of a day of rest on which, as far as possible, all work is stopped for everyone, is a tradition which we ought to value and which we ought to infringe with the greatest possible reluctance. I therefore appeal even to those who feel they are right in this matter to be tolerant with others. I say, "You have got now two-thirds of what you desire; let us have a compromise, a concordat; let us agree that the Gardens shall be opened on Sunday, that the Festival shall be open on Sunday, but that this particular last straw, the opening of the amusements park, should not be laid upon the camel's back.
    The Chairman: Mr. Crossman.
    Hon. Member: Divide.
    The Chairman: I have called the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man). I am not at the moment prepared to accept the Closure.
    Mr. Crossman: I shall not detain the Committee long but I should like to reply briefly to the three points made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). His first argument for the Amendment to this Bill was a moral argument for the Day of Rest. The second, which I did not quite understand, was a question of good manners, that the Government should not organise a fun fair. The third was an appeal for a spirit of compromise which would not push the sabbatarians too far.
    It is worth noticing that an argument of principle has nothing to do with this Amendment, because the principles were accepted in the passing of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not expect the people who voted against the entire Bill to be impressed by my argument, but I do say that anybody who did not vote against the Bill as a whole has not a leg to stand on.
    HON. MEMBERS: Nonsense.
    Mr. William Elwyn Jones: Does not the hon. Member remember that the Lord President of the Council made it abundantly clear that anybody voting for the Second Reading of this Bill was not committed to vote for Sunday opening of the fun fair?
    Mr. Crossman: Nobody is suggesting that they were. I was discussing points of principle. Two points of principle were put forward. The first was that it was unfair for the Government to ask for permission to do things which others are not allowed to do. But that point of principle was already granted in approving four parts out of five of the Festival. Hon. Members are not entitled to assume that we are setting a precedent giving a special exemption in this Amendment because the rest of the Festival has already been given that exemption.
    Equally I would suggest to our Sabbatarian friends that there really is by now a very fine definition of principle. Consider this. It is perfectly in order on the Sabbath to go to the South Bank and send a radio message to the moon and back—that apparently is a cultural entertainment—but it is "God dishonouring"

    1063
    to go to a fun fair where you may go on a giant whizzer or whatever it is called. Really this idea that there is a point of principle here in dividing four parts of the Festival Exhibition from the fifth is absurd.
    9.30 p.m.
    May I explain this debate in a different way? I would suggest that what the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove and his supporters are doing is to grant the substance of Sunday opening but reserve one exception, as irritating as possible, to maintain their conscientious opposition to what they have conceded. We are always told what a wonderful British thing it is to compromise—to give the substance of the case which the people obviously want and then to retain something to salve our consciences; but I think it is a very poor way of running a Festival if we happen to retain a ridiculous ban on one part of the exhibition in order to salve the consciences of Members who have already given way to the main principle.
    I can appreciate that in the history of the Church the Erastian Anglican often makes this sort of compromise. I am surprised that Nonconformist Churches, who have an horror of Erastianism, make this sort of compromise. Till now it has always been regarded as typical of the Anglican establishment to give way on substance and to retain a flavour of principle after the surrender. This House of Commons should take the Festival seriously from that point of view and say that if we are to have the Festival, we should have the whole Festival open all the week.
    It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) to say that although the majority of people are for Sunday opening, we must give way to the minority. Frankly, in the Midlands it simply means that on one of the two days at the weekend no one will go to London for the Festival, because people will want to see the whole thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Well, wait and see. Anybody who says that in choosing a day to go to London to visit the Festival people will choose the one day when part of it is not open, does not know very much abouts the habits of our Midland people, who want the best value for their money.
    1064
    People will obviously choose a day when they can see the whole Festival.
    Mr. Wigg: When my hon. Friend talks about the Midlands, let him draw a distinction between Coventry and the rest.
    Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend asks me to draw a distinction between Coventry and the rest, but as my hon. Friend himself in his speech remarked that the overwhelming majority of his constituents wanted the Festival open on Sundays—
    Mr. Wigg: I did not say "overwhelming."
    Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend, then, said only "the majority." He agrees that it is the majority at Dudley, and the overwhelming majority at Coventry, who want the Festival open on Sundays. By and large, it is quite clear that with a Festival which has very little space, there will be a terribly overcrowded Saturday and an empty Sunday. That is a great pity for the people's enjoyment of the Festival.
    I want to make a remark about lobbying. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made a remark as though the Lord's Day Observance Society were misbehaving itself in exerting pressure. I do not agree with that. There is an obvious right of the democracy to put pressure on its Members of Parliament. There is nothing improper in a society being formed to achieve certain objectives. Very few reforms would have been achieved if there had not been pressure groups lobbying Members of Parliament.
    What I have always felt on the opening of the Festival was that the Sabbatarian lobbying got in rather early and made a rather undue impression on certain people. The view of public opinion expressed a few days ago was in great distinction from the trend of today's debate. The talk a few days ago was as though most people were opposed to Sunday opening. Today, a week later, it is said that although probably, the majority want it, we must consider the minority. [Interruption.] I have heard speech after speech which said that it may well be that the majority want it but that we must consider the minority. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the 'Sunday

    1065
    Pictorial'?"] I am very pleased that one Sunday paper has begun to organise public opinion to show that there is a view on the other side also. I would not say that the result of the ballot which it organised meant nothing. What it showed was a lively public interest.
    More people voted on that particular subject than in any newspaper ballot before. No fewer than 60,000 people paid 1½d. to have the right to have their votes counted, which shows that the Festival of Britain has been put over to the people of the country better by the controversy in this House than £1 million worth of advertising could possibly have achieved. The people are now, thank goodness, Festival-conscious. That is something achieved by these hours of debate. The other thing we learned, for what it is worth, from those 60,000 is what we would expect—that London, according to our ballot, was overwhelmingly in favour of opening the fun fair—
    Mr. Sidney Marshall: Is the hon. Member referring to the "Sunday Pictorial"?
    Mr. Crossman: It was a straw vote which showed that the majority of our readers in Wales were against and the majority in parts of Scotland and parts of the North of England were against, but there was an overwhelming majority in the Midlands and the South in favour of the Sunday opening. I mention this for one reason only—
    Mr. McAdden: Will the hon. Gentleman explain, when he talks of an overwhelming majority, whether he is suggesting that 60,000 of the readers of the "Sunday Pictorial" is a majority of their readers?
    Mr. Crossman: I made it perfectly clear we are discussing one "straw in the wind." It is relevant to observe that, when hon. Members frequently mention their own post bags, they are providing no better evidence than the letters received by the "Sunday Pictorial." All I am saying is that we did not find in London any question of the people being against Sunday opening.
    There has been a lot of talk about consideration for the people of Battersea. What does Battersea really think? I know that the Battersea Labour Party has voted unanimously for Sunday open-
    1066
    ing. If the Battersea Conservative Party had been against it, would we not have heard of that?
    Let us admit there has been no recorded opposition from Battersea. The really certain fact, as far as we can tell, is that Battersea seems quite willing to have this going on in their part of the world. I think that hon. Members who really talk as though, for the sake of Battersea, we ought not to open this amusements park on Sundays have not produced one shred of evidence that Battersea does not want it. If there had been any evidence of Battersea seriously objecting, we would have known of it. Moreover, the Battersea clergy who, we know, at the beginning discussed with the Festival authorities the arrangements for their services, saw no objection to the fun fair. On the contrary, at that time, before the pressure started, they believed it would bring crowds which would enable them to conduct evangelism in the Festival Gardens.
    Lieut.-Commander Baldock: The hon. Member has referred to the state of opinion in Battersea. I was not using any straw votes but only appealing to expressions of opinion I have heard myself there—not any test or public vote—and if he used his imagination and thought what the situation would be like on a Sunday, it is not difficult to understand the view they take.
    Mr. Crossman: I am not prepared to allow my imagination to guide me in this matter, but I feel that if there were serious opposition in Battersea some responsible authority would have registered that opposition.
    Mr. Braine: The hon. Member said that he was willing to hear of evidence that some responsible authority among Battersea Conservatives is opposed to Sunday opening of the Pleasure Gardens. I have the greatest pleasure in informing him that the prospective Conservative candidate, Captain Partridge, has openly stated he is against it.
    Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman is rather simple-minded. Out of 60,000 Battersea people, one prospective Conservative candidate was opposed to it.
    Mr. Braine Mr. Braine rose—
    Mr. Crossman: I wish to make one last point. The last free vote we had in this House was on capital punishment. I remember that vote. I belonged to the side that believed passionately in the abolition of capital punishment. We won in the Division Lobby. A lot of people opposite were wise in that respect, and said, "Public opinion does not agree with that step." So after we voted for it, public opinion after all had its way. I am not saying that one ought to capitulate to public opinion but one certainly has to consider it.
    I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite who object to controls that I should have thought that such a control as is here sought is one of the kind with which we could dispense. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, shakes his head. What sort of a control is it to say that one particular part of this Festival should be closed on Sunday because the hon. Gentleman thinks it is all right to pay for a boat on the lake but not to pay for a ride on the giant switchback? That appears to be the kind of attitude expressed in "I know what is good for the poorer people, but we, of course, are free to spend Sunday as we like."
    The hon. Gentleman and his Sabbatarian friends may be right. They may in 30 years' time re-educate this country to the horrors of the Victorian Sunday. All I say is that they have not done it yet, and if the people of this country discover, when the Festival opens, that what the Act proposes has been done in the name of the Sabbath, they will be very angry, and with good reason.
    Mr. H. Hynd Mr. H. Hynd rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but The CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. Lionel Heald: I wish to make the confession to the Committee that I first thought seriously on this matter when I read in "The Times" of 15th November the letter from the Council of Churches. I wish to admit, quite frankly, that at that time I accepted what that letter said, gratefully and uncritically, as providing an answer to what might be a rather difficult and embarrassing question. I have now come to the conclusion that that was not a proper discharge of my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament.
    1068
    One must, of course, give proper weight to an opinion of that kind, but as one who was born and brought up in faith of the Church of England I think that there must be very few occasions when it is right to surrender one's independent judgment to higher authority. This is certainly not such an occasion. I believe that I am entitled only to appeal to one of two things tonight—my own conscience and, if I can ascertain it, the opinion of the majority of my constituents irrespective of any party considerations. This is an occasion when we have to represent our constituents as a whole without any distinction.
    9.45 p.m.
    There is one matter which I should like to make plain, and which I believe to be right. We ought not to be affected tonight in any way by the fact that this is a Government proposal. There is to be a free vote and we should treat it as such. I most sincerely hope that none of my hon. Friends will think for one moment that they should be affected in their vote by the fact that tonight they will go into the Lobby with political opponents. That would be entirely wrong. After all, I should have an opportunity tonight, which I am most unlikely to have on any other foreseeable occasion, of going into the same Lobby as the Lord President of the Council and I feel that I ought to take advantage of that opportunity.
    Above all, we are here as legislators. That is the matter with which we are chiefly concerned. We ought to consider what is the present state of the law and how we are being asked to alter it tonight. This is a subject upon which there is the most extraordinary ignorance both among the general public who are supposed to know the law, and among Members of Parliament who not only are supposed to know the law but are the guardians of the law and its makers. I wonder how many people in the Committee really appreciate that it is not, and never has been, unlawful to provide anybody with a seat on a roundabout on a Sunday or to take money for it. It is not and never has been illegal to do that.
    In the Sunday Observance Act, 1780, we have an extraordinary and archaic provision, and it is right that the Committee should bear in mind what it does. It does not prevent people from going on

    1069
    swings and roundabouts. That has been so decided and it is the established law today. I sincerely hope that the Attorney-General will tell me if I have said anything which could mislead the Committee on the question of law. The Committee ought to be aware of that point. In 1897 a decision was made in a case called Williams v. Wright which is today the ruling law, and will be until it is altered. That decision was that in the case where a ticket was printed with the words "Admission free" the fact that there was a charge made for a reserved seat was not incompatible with the admission being free, and the entertainment in question was not contrary to the Sunday Observance Act.
    That is the law today and it is only because the Government have chosen, for reasons which seems to be practical and convenient, to adopt one form of ticket rather than another, that there is any need for anybody to be worried about this matter. I ask the Committee to bear that in mind. Under the law today there can be two men on the same roundabout on a Sunday. The only difference between them is that they have two different types of ticket. One is breaking the law and the other is not. That is the law. [Laughter.] It was expressly approved in 1936, in the case of Kitchener v. the "Evening Standard," when it was said by the judge:
    "The only authority of which I know as to the proper interpretation of this Section is Williams against Wright."
    Hon. Members laughed just now when I said that that was the law. They should be quite clear. We have no right to blame the lawyers or the judges for this state of affairs. There is only one body of people on whom the blame can be laid and that is on everyone who is a Member of Parliament. We are responsible for the disgraceful state of the law which is resulting in this most appalling humbug.
    When this question arose the other day, hon. Members were astonished to hear that it was thought, to start with, that there were two or three fun fairs which were open on Sundays. I saw them hurrying around the Library looking up why this should be. They said, "There must be a special Act of Parliament which authorises this in the case of Blackpool." but there was no special Act, and they found that there
    1070
    were 57 of these fairs. Why? Because it is legal, and there is nothing unlawful about it at all. Anyone who prints his tickets in the right way can do it. If the Government had formed an association with the title "Friends of the Festival of Britain," to which members paid half-a-crown a year, they would get a badge and every single thing there would have been legal and in order. I say that that is something which has to be put right.
    I have had the great fortune to have had an opportunity of tackling one corner of this Augean stable—the common informer. I have dealt with that problem in the only way we can deal with it, which is simply to limit his operations by depriving the common informer of his spoils, but this is only the beginning. I say that the Government have chosen the right way of approaching this matter—that of dealing with it on its merits, in accordance with the spirit but not the letter of the law—and I shall support them. But I would make this condition about it. We must have our pound of flesh. If they have our support in this attitude, they must accept this—that, if they are asking the Committee to deal with realities and to ignore these fictions, they must themselves undertake the overhaul of the Sunday Observance Act. I am sure it would be very much better for the whole of the Christian conscience of the country that we should tackle that disgraceful blot on our law.
    On the issue tonight, I have said that there are only two matters—one's own conscience and the views of one's constituents. As regards one's constituents' views, it is very difficult for anyone to know what they are, but I would say that I am quite satisfied that there is no enormous body of people, such as we have had suggested, who will break the windows or throw me into the River Thames if I vote as I intend to do this evening. In regard to one's own conscience, we must remember that conscience is not a one-way street. There are people travelling in the opposite direction, and they are entitled to their views, as we are entitled to ours. I shall this evening support the proposal that the fun fair should be opened.
    The Chairman: I think the Committee is now ready to come to a decision.
    Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. G. Thomas Mr. G. Thomas 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 put accordingly, "That 'with or' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee proceeded to a Division—
    Mr. Wyatt (seated and covered): On a point of order, Major Milner. I wish to bring to your attention the fact that a number of hon. Members have voted in the wrong Lobby under a misapprehension as to the Lobby into which they should go.
    The Chairman: I am afraid that is not a matter in which I can take any action. That is the Members' own responsibility.
    Mr. Nally (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Major Milner. It is perfectly true that Mem-
    bers carry their own responsibility for their votes, but there are at least three precedents in the former Parliament where such misconception existed, one of which resulted in an hon. Member on the following day explaining to the House the circumstances in which he had voted. There are at least three precedents for the Chair taking account of the fact that many Members, because of some confusion as to the form of voting, had voted under a misapprehension. I should like to ask you whether, after the Division has been taken, it will be in order for me to raise a point of order as to the validity of the vote which has been taken.
    The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that in those circumstances I cannot do anything, nor will it be possible to give any different Ruling after the Division.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 134 Noes, 389.

    Division No. 8.]

    AYES

    [9.54 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Adams, Richard

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Orbach, M.

    Albu, A. H.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Paget, R. T.

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

    Parker, J.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Paton, J.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

    Peart, T. F.

    Astor, Hon. M.

    Hamilton, W. W

    Popplewell, E.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

    Hannan, W.

    Porter, G.

    Bacon, Miss A

    Hardman, D. R.

    Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Baird, J.

    Heald, L. F.

    Pursey, Comdr H.

    Baker, P.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Rankin, J.

    Balfour, A.

    Holman, P.

    Reeves, J.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

    Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Benson, G.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Bing, G. H. C

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir. H.

    Blenkinsop, A

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Bottomley, A. G

    Jeger, G. (Goole)

    Snow, J. W.

    Bower, N.

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

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Jenkins, R. H.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Brockway, A. Fennar

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

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

    Keeling, E. H.

    Strauss, Rt, Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)

    Callaghan, James

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

    Carmichael, James

    Lang, Rev. G.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A

    Lee, F. (Newton)

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Clunie, J.

    Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)

    Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda. W.)

    Cooks, F. S.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Collick, P.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Tomney, F.

    Cooper, J. (Deptford)

    Low, A. R. W.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Usborne, Henry

    Cove, W. G

    Macdonald, Sir P (l. of Wight)

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Crawley, A

    McGovern, J.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

    Crosland, C. A. R

    Mclnnes, J.

    Weitzman, D.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)

    Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Mikardo, Ian

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

    Deer, G.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Moeran, E. W.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Morley, R.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)

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

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Yates, V. F.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Nally, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Finch, H. J.

    Neal, H.

    Mr. Leslie Hale and Mr. Carson.

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

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

    Foot, M. M.

    O'Brien, T.

    NOES

    Attken, W. T.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmstord)

    Duthie W. S.

    Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Dye, S.

    Hutchison, Col. J. R. H. (Scotstouh)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hyde, H. M

    Ayles, W. H.

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Baldock, J. M.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Baldwin, A. E.

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

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Janner, B.

    Bartley, P.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Jeffreys, General Sir. G.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Jennings, R.

    Bell, R. M.

    Ewart, R.

    Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Bennett, Sir. P. (Edgbaston)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

    Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

    Forman, J. C.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Beswick, F.

    Fort, R.

    Kaberry, D.

    Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

    Foster, J. G.

    Keenan, W.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)

    Kenyon, C.

    Black, C. W.

    Freeman, J. (Watford)

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Kinley, J.

    Boardman, H.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

    Gage, C. H.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Booth, A.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Bowen, R.

    Gammans, L. D.

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

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Boyle, Sir. Edward

    Garner-Evam, E. H. (Denbigh)

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Braine, B.

    Gilzean, A.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

    Glyn, Sir. R.

    Llewellyn, D.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

    Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

    Granville, E. (Eye)

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Grey, C. F.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Gridley, Sir. A.

    Logan, D. G.

    Browne, J. N. (Govan)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (LIanelly)

    Longden, F. (Small Heath)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Grimond, J.

    Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S.W.)

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

    Lucas, Major Sir. J. (Portsmouth, S.)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.

    Gunter, R. J.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir. H.

    Burke, W. A.

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    McAdden, S, J.

    Burton, Miss. E.

    Hale, J. (Roohdale)

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne V'll'y)

    Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hardy, E. A.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    McKibbin, A.

    Channon, H.

    Hargreaves, A.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

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

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Harris, R. R. (Heston)

    Maclean, F. H. R.

    Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)

    Harrison, J.

    McLeavy, F.

    Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)

    Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Clyde, J. L.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Coldrick, W.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Collindridge, F.

    Hayman, F. H.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

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

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Heath, E. R.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

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

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

    Herbison, Miss. M.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir. R.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Marples, A. E.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Cundiff, F. W.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

    Daines, P.

    Holmes, Sir. J. Stanley (Harwich)

    Maude, J. C. (Exeter)

    Darling, Sir. W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hope, Lord J.

    Medlicott, Brigadier F.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss. P.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Messer, F.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Monslow, W.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hoy, J.

    Moody, A. S.

    Donner, P. W.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir. T.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Drewe, C.

    1074

    1075

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Mort, D. L.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Thorp, Brigadier R. A.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)

    Tilney, John

    Moyle, A.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Timmons, J.

    Murray, J. D.

    Roper, Sir. H.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Nabarro, G.

    Ross, Sir. R. D. (Londonderry)

    Touche, G. C.

    Nicholls, H.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Nicholson, G.

    Royle, C.

    Turton, R. H.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Russell, R. S.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Savory, Prof. D. L.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Odey, G. W.

    Scott, Donald

    Viant, S. P.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)

    Vosper, D. F.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wade, D. W.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Walker-Smith, D. C,

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Slater, J.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Osborne, C.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Padley, W. E.

    Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)

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

    Watkins, T. E.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Watkinson, H.

    Pannell, T. C.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Webbe, Sir. H. (London)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    West, D. G.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Soames, Capt. C.

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

    Pearson, A.

    Soreneen, R. W.

    Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Sparks, J. A.

    White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

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

    Pickthorn, K.

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    White, J. Baker (Canterbury)

    Pitman, I. J

    Stevens, G. P.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Poole, Cecil

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    Wigg, George

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Wilkes, L.

    Prescott, Stanley

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

    Storey, S.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Summers, G. S.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Williams, Sir. H. G (Croydon, E.)

    Redmayne, M.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Wills, G.

    Rees, Mrs. D.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)

    Reid, W. (Camlachie)

    Teeling, William

    Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Woods, Rev. G. S.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    York, C.

    Richards, R.

    Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)

    Mr. George Thomas and

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caemarvonshire)

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

    Mr. Anthony Greenwood.

    Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    To report Progress; and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Sparks.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

CONSOLIDATION, ETC., BILLS
Lords Message [23rd November] relating to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, to be considered.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
Lords Message considered accordingly.
Select Committee of six Members appointed to join with the Committee
1076
appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, together with the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the Act, in the present Session:
Captain Duncan, Mr. Forman, Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson, Mr. Janner, Mr. Keeling and Mr. Oliver to be Members of the Committee:
Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records:
Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

MEAT RATIONING
10.11 p.m.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 11th October 1950, entitled the Meat (Rationing) (Amendment No. 4) Order, 1950 (S.1., 1950, No. 1660), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th October 1950, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
We move this Prayer tonight because many of us feel that we should protest in the strongest possible terms against any reductions in the rations, whether they be reductions in the butter ration, the bacon ration, or, as in this case, the meat ration. We have now had five years of so-called peace, and we have had five years of Socialist planning. We all remember that in the General Election of 1945 we heard from the Socialist spokesmen that we had left behind the old scarcity economics of the capitalist world and that we were going on very quickly into an era of plenty for all. I want to examine for a few moments the position of the meat supplies—
Mr. John Hynd: When did the hon. Gentleman hear those terms, that we were "going on very quickly into an era of plenty for all."?
Mr. Taylor: I said the impression was given that the old scarcity economics of the capitalist regime were now left behind, and that we were going forward to an era in which there were going to be fair shares for all and plenty of everything.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas Mr. Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East) rose—
Mr. Taylor: The hon. and learned Member must restrain himself. He will have every opportunity to take part in this debate if he desires. I want to examine the position of the meat imports and home production for the first nine months of 1949 and the first nine months of this year. In 1949, between January and August, the home production of meat was 380,000 tons, and that included mutton, beef, veal and pork. We imported 495,000 tons, making a total of 875,500 tons of meat available in imports and home production. In 1950 we improved very considerably on that. We produced in this country over 455,000 tons and imported over 612,000 tons,
1078
making a total of 1,067,000 tons of meat in the first nine months of this year.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman also tell the House that during that period the distribution of meat in this country was fairer than ever before?
Mr. Taylor: The hon. and learned Member must allow me to give the facts first, then I shall develop my argument as I want to. I shall deal with the distribution of meat in due course.
Of the total imports of meat to this country, by far and away the biggest supplies came from the Argentine, but as a result of a disagreement between the British Government and the Argentine Government, Argentina said that they would not export any meat to this country after July of this year, which is the new contract year which continues until June, 1951. [Interruption.] Hon. Members seem very touchy tonight. Maybe it is the excitement of the debate on the Battersea fun fair. I hope they will allow me the opportunity to develop my case.
In spite of the fact that Argentina, the biggest exporter of meat to this country, said in July last that they would not send us further supplies of meat, in October the Minister of Food said:
"What we shall try to do is to hold the line. I think we shall succeed. If we can do that in present circumstances, I think when we know all the facts we may feel that we have not done too bad a job."
The last thing I want to do is to embarrass the Government in any negotiations they are conducting with the Argentine Government today. Speaking for myself, I believe quite firmly that the British housewife would prefer to see the meat ration reduced by half rather than be blackmailed by the Argentine Government.
Mr. Daines Mr. Daines (East Ham, North) rose—
Mr. Taylor: I am sorry, but I cannot give way just now. I shall try to prove that this attempt by Argentina to obtain excessive prices for her meat exports would never have occurred had it not have been for the present Government's policy of State trading. As I have said, Argentina ceased supplying this country last July. In previous years, certainly the

1079
year before, when the present Secretary of State for War was Minister of Food, the Minister paid such generous prices for meat in the Argentine that he drove all the other foreign buyers off the market.
Mr. Daines: Who were they?
Mr. Taylor: I am coming to them. For example, I understand that in 1949 Belgium contracted to buy 42,000 tons of meat from the Argentine. In September of that year, the Belgians cancelled their contract of 33,000 tons of meat, and we bought that meat at 25 per cent. higher prices than the contract prices which the Belgians had elected to cancel because they thought that they were too high. That is the miserable story of what happened when the present Secretary of State for War was Minister of Food.
We are the biggest buyers of meat from the Argentine, and it obviously makes a difference to the markets of the world what prices we pay for that meat. I do not believe that if private enterprise buyers had gone out buying their small parcels of meat there and elsewhere against other private buyers we should ever have been met with bulk selling by the Argentine Government. I believe that it is entirely due to the Government's policy of bulk buying that we are met with bulk selling from the Argentine. We see the whole flexibility of private enterprise in connection with the meat trade wiped out, and we are now faced with the present impasse.
Ever since we commenced bulk buying we have had a certain amount of trouble. We had trouble in 1949 when the meat ration fell to the all-time low level of 10d. as a result of failure of deliveries of meat from the Argentine. We had contracted to take 400,000 tons, but in February, 1949, 108,000 tons still remained unshipped from the Argentine 'to this country. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, said at that time that we had a guarantee from the Argentine Government that the meat would be delivered. I believe that if only we can get back to the days when private enterprise sent their buyers into the market we should be able to purchase meat, perhaps not the enormous bulk quantity which the Minister is in the habit of buying today, but meat in smaller quantities, and the overall total of the meat pur-
1080
chased would be as much if not greater than it is today.
We are not only suffering from lack of meat, we are making enemies throughout the world by this Government buying. On 23rd October this year the Argentine Ambassador was a guest at a butchers' dinner in London. He said:
"We have been accused of blackmail."
Then he devoted 20 minutes of his speech in order to prove—and these are his words—that
"it is the sole responsibility of the British Government that no meat has been shipped to this country since July, and if the British people undergo any hardship in their ration or the trade suffers by this action it is not the Argentine Government who should be blamed."
I am not saying whether he is right or wrong, but I am saying that this is indicative of the bad relations which can be created between Government and Government when State trading arrangements exist. The not only extends between the Argentine and this country; it has come nearer home. In Canada there has been trouble, and in December, 1949, Canada's Minister of Agriculture said:
"We do seem to be at or near a cross road where a plan based on Government to Government sales cannot be continued."
Within the great British Commonwealth we look at New Zealand. In New Zealand the Federated Farmers Meat and Wool Council announced in February of this year that the Ministry of Food—[Interruption]. I wish hon. Members opposite would wait a little bit and give me a chance to finish my speech. They will have a chance to speak later. As I was saying, this body stated that the Ministry of Food did New Zealand a grave injustice by the defective storage and inefficient distribution of New Zealand meat. This Council said that it was no good blaming New Zealand for the quality of the meat, for the Ministry of Food distributed it and stored it in an inefficient manner.
The House must agree that the high prices which we have been paying for meat are being forced upon the Government because of their policy of bulk buying and because of the inefficient storage and distribution methods of the Ministry of Food. Looking back over the years, one must compare
Mr. Hector Hughes Mr. Hector Hughes rose—
Mr. Taylor: I am sorry I cannot give way. One must consider the amount of the meat ration since 1940. In 1940 when—
Mr. Hector Hughes Mr. Hector Hughes rose—
Mr. Taylor: As I have said before, the hon. and learned Gentleman can speak at a later time if he should happen to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have already given way sufficiently during this very short speech.
Looking back over the years, in 1940, when our supplies were threatened by enemy shipping, our meat ration was 1s. 10d. a week. In 1941, when our ports were being bombed and U-boat warfare made our position pretty grim, our meat ration fell to 1s. 2d. and subsequently to Is. When the war ended we expected to see a vast improvement in our ration. What happened in 1946? The meat ration was 1s. 4d. In 1947 it went down as low as 1s. and in 1948–49 it varied between 10d. and 1s. 2d. One must remember that since 1949 the price of meat has gone up by 4d. a lb. so that 1s. 6d. ration today is equivalent to a 1s. 2d. meat ration before 1949. The Minister of Food tries to reduce the ration by bringing it to the same level as that at which it was in the darkest and grimmest days of the war. If hon. Members opposite are proud of that record, I certainly am not.
We often hear that the principle of fair shares for all is today being practised, and that people today are better able to buy meat than before the war. It is rather interesting to know from the United Nations Economic Survey of Europe that the consumption per head in the United Kingdom between the war years 1934–38 stood at the index figure of 60, whereas in the years 1948–49 the index figure was only 42. It does not look very much like as if we are eating as much meat per day per head as we were in the years before the war. I suggest that fair shares for all is perhaps being carried a little too far.
Mr. Hector Hughes: But the national health is better.
Mr. Taylor: I want to deal with the markets of the world which are available to us for the supplies of meat. I do not really see why our meat ration should be reduced. I have already dealt with Argentina, but I would point out that never be-
1082
fore in the history of meat importation has there been such a stoppage as there is at the present time because of Government negotiation. Australia has promised to do her best to develop her Northern Territory within the next 15 years for the supply of meat to this country, but that is going to take a long time. Mr. Menzies, when he was over here, said that if Australia were asked, he believed that Australia could do more in the immediate future. We are taking all New Zealand's surplus food.
What other countries are open to us? I understand that we were offered 15,000 tons of meat from Brazil. The Minister of Food laid down various conditions, such as that they must supply a guaranteed quantity, and as in any case he refused to pay the same price as promised to Argentina and Uruguay, the deal fell through. We missed these 15,000 tons from Brazil, which presumably went to some other country. We could have got 20,000 tons from France; but we did not get it. Why did we not get it? Can I have an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight? Our imports from Denmark have been negligible.
Why do we not get more meat from Eire? Eire has been exporting meat to Sweden and, believe it or not, to the United States; and those countries are new customers. They have also sent meat to Belgium, Holland, West Germany and Switzerland. I suggest that much of this meat could have been obtained by this country had some effort been made to get it.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: At what price?
Mr. Taylor: If West Germany and Holland and Belgium—one ex-enemy country and two countries over-run by the enemy—are in a position to buy food and meat, we could have done a deal if our own meat buyers had been going out instead of the Government buying in bulk.
I admit that the amounts from the alternative sources which I have mentioned are perhaps small compared with the figures the Ministry of Food visualise in their programme of buying, but all these amounts add up. The cold storage accommodation of this country holds only about 200,000 tons, and then the British larder is full. Surely we could have stocked up by buying these small

1083
amounts. It is no wish of mine to embarrass the Government in their negotiations with Argentina, but the time has now come to do away with bulk purchasing and the bowler-hatted buyers of the Ministry of Food, and to hand back the job to the men who know their work and are able freely to negotiate terms between the private buyer and the private seller in the markets of the world.
10.34 p.m.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to second the Motion.
It is not difficult to anticipate the kind of reply that the Parliamentary Secretary will make. I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would bet he is almost certain to say something like this: "We increased the ration from 1s. 6d. to 1s. 7d. in order to find an outlet for the autumn glut of meat, when the home grown meat was coming off the grass. We do not put that meat in cold storage but send it straight out to the consumer. It was well understood—it was announced at the time—that we are giving you a 1s. 7d. ration so long as we can, but in a week or two it will come down to 1s. 6d. again.'Then he will go on to say, "How very foolish it is of the Opposition to take this line."
An Hon. Member: Come over to this side.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): I am sure the House would be more interested in hearing what the hon. Member has to say.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I do not think it can be claimed that I ant ever backward in giving my own views in this House, but I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will say, "How foolish it is of Opposition Members to take this Prayer for annulment, because the logical effect of their carrying it would be to cause us to make further improvident drawings on our already depleted stocks of meat, which would be the reverse of good housekeeping." That is what he will say.
Mrs. Middleton: What will the hon. Member say?
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I shall say that we have tabled this Prayer as a
1084
protest against a policy which has resulted in the people of this country having less meat at a time of the year when we ought all to be having more. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will say almost exactly what I have suggested, but it is absolutely certain that the housewife will regard, and has already regarded, the reduction of the meat ration as another indication of the lamentable failure of the Government's policy of bulk buying.
Mrs. Middleton: It depends on the housewife.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Before the war, private enterprise buyers, often living in the country with which they traded, persuaded the producers to grow the kind and quantity of meat which we in this country required and to produce an exportable surplus. We have to remember that an exportable surplus exists only in so far as one can get the grower in the foreign country to do without the meat himself, by giving sufficient inducement to him to export to us.
What is happening today? State trading organisation, using diplomats, commercial attaches and so on, is dealing with State selling organisations in the countries with whom we are trading, and in fixing the bargains they do not provide adequate incentives, or, if they provide them in the price, the exporting country does not pass them on to the producer the producer does not get adequate incentives to produce the kind of meat and the type of joint we want in this country. In place of the clockwork regularity of the pre-war arrivals of meat in this country—including the nutritious chilled beef which this Government of planners has planned off the consumer's plate—our supplies are now dependent on long-term, inflexible, and uncertain bargains between governments.
I had the honour of initiating in this House in, I think, March of this year, a short debate on our meat supplies. It was the first occasion that the Minister of Food had stood at the Despatch Box and answered officially for his policy in the Government of which he had lately become a member. In that, his first Ministerial speech on this subject, he said he was not going to allow this country to be blackmailed any more. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) has referred to the effect

1085
of the unfortunate use of that word. The negotiations which were then taking place between our commercial attaché at Buenos Aires were immediately and summarily broken off pending an explanation by His Majesty's Government of the use of the word "blackmail." The Argentine Government has not forgotten it, and Senor Hogan,the Ambassador to London, referred to it, as my hon. Friend said, only recently in London in a public speech. To what depth of folly have we descended when the maintenance of our people's rations may depend on unconsidered words let fall by an incautious Minister.
Everyone knows that there would not be the slighest need to reduce the ration if the Argentine shipments could be resumed again. Anyone who is able to read and who is able to pay a penny for a daily newspaper, knows the reason why these shipments have not been resumed. The reason is because no mutually satisfactory price can be agreed. In outline, the picture is clear enough. In the first year of the Anglo-Argentine five-year agreement, the year which ended on 30th June last, long before there was any talk of the devaluation of the British pound, and at a time when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer repeatedly said there would be no devaluation, the price per long ton f.o.b. which we were paying the Argentine under the contract, was £97 10s. That price held good under the agreement until 30th June, 1950, when the second year of the five-year agreement started at a price then to be agreed. When we devalued, the Argentine Government naturally asked for an increase of price of 40 per cent. to cover the extent of the devaluation.
Mr. Daines: Give it to him.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Let the hon. Member tell the Minister to give it to them. The hon. Gentleman thinks they ought to be given that amount. I suggest he tells the Minister and see what he says.
Mr. Daines: I think the hon. Member misunderstood me. His hon. Friend below the Gangway was trying to pass him a message, and I said, "Give it to him."
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: When the devaluation took place, the Argentine
1086
Government under protest said, "We will continue to send meat to this country to the end of the first year of the contract ending 30th June, invoicing it at the old price of £97 10s. a ton pending an agreement as to the additional amount that should be given in respect of devaluation." Then, as no agreement had come about at the beginning of the second year, they said, "we will not send anything from 1st July onwards until we can get an agreement." We were offering only £90 a long ton f.o.b. I only get my information from the newspapers, and it is open to every hon. Member to see a newspaper. Just recently the Government increased that offer to £97 10s. f.o.b. a long ton, and the Argentine Government has refused it. That is the position we are in today.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) that everyone on all sides of the House must want resumptions of meat supplies from the Argentine. [An HON. MEMBER: "At what price?"] No hon. Member would willingly do anything to prejudice, by his words or by his actions, the opportunity for that great source of supply to restart. The position is very serious, and consumers perhaps do not realise how serious it will be unless that source of supply can be started again.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Would the hon. Member say at what price?
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Of course I cannot say at what price—
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: That is the whole issue.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley:—because I am not privy to the information, which is held only by the Minister of Food and by the Treasury. I cannot say—
Mr. F. Wiley: If the hon. Member is not privy to such information, does he think that he is really helping us in the present negotiations by giving such a tendentious account?
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: If the account is tendentious, I can only say that it is the account which has been appearing freely in the daily Press, and I hope that the Minister will take this early opportunity of correcting it.
Whatever we may feel about the desire for restarting the shipments of meat—and

1087
we must all be aware of the need to do so—no good whatever can come from blinding ourselves to the fact that this Government are so hamstrung by their desire to peg the cost of living, by their policy of the food subsidies and of fixing those subsidies at a figure which they will in no circumstances exceed, that they make it extremely difficult to import any more food of any kind, because if they do so they inevitably increase the trading losses and, therefore, increase the amount of the subsidy.
Mrs. Middleton: Is it the argument of the hon. Member that it is not the policy of Members on the other side of the House to keep down the cost of food?
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: My own policy would be gradually to reduce the level of the food subsidies, making at the same time compensatory payments to people on the lower income scales. I am informed that experts who have worked out the figures agree that for every £3 that is saved on the food subsidies, £1—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is dealing with food subsidies, but we are dealing with meat and not the general problem of food subsidies. The hon. Member is going a little beyond the scope of the Debate.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I quite agree, Sir, and I am sure you will agree that I did so only because I was asked a specific question.
The significance of the present position is this. In spite of a considerable increase in the home production of meat this year, it will be quite impossible for the Minister to maintain the 1s. 6d. ration. Indeed, it seems likely that if he accepts the advice of his experts, the ration ought to come down before Christmas. Certainly, unless he can get the Argentine shipments restarted, the weekly ration is bound to go down to something like 1s. 2d. a week very early in the New Year, and possibly sooner. This is an extremely serious position. It is not one that we on this side welcome, and it is not one that hon. Members opposite can possibly welcome.
Mr. Baker: Is my hon. Friend advocating that we should buy Argentine meat at any price rather than develop alternative sources in the Empire and in Britain?
Mr. Follick: Hear, hear.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am very strong in my support of the Empire, and I am most anxious that sources of supply of meat should be developed, as they are being developed, in Queensland and in the northern territory of Australia and in other similar places, but unfortunately it will be at least four years before we can get a worthwhile supply of meat from those sources. There are no places in the world where we can quickly get sufficient meat to replace—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—the meat we can get from the Argentine. My answer on the price question is that I am not in a position to say what is a fair price, but I am warning the House—and I am sure hon. Members will find it is true—that if we cannot get a resumption of shipments from the Argentine very soon, the ration will inevitably go down to something like 1s. 2d.
If I may say so, one of the welcome things about the Minister of Food, who is not here tonight—I do not see why, on an important subject like this, though we are very pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary—is that one finds him very readily approachable. Members who have gone to him, as many of us have, on deputations, or privately, have always found him ready to see us when we have come to speak about meat. He has, until the last few weeks, always had by him his trusted adviser, Sir Henry Turner, who has been in the very heart of the Ministry of Food for the last 11 years, latterly as Director of Meat and Livestock.
Mr. F. Willey: If the hon. Member was casting aspersions on those who purchase the meat for the Ministry of Food, was he including Sir Henry Turner?
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I was not aware that I was casting any aspersions on him or on individuals, but I was castigating a system which I believe to be utterly wrong. Sir Henry Turner has left the Ministry. After leaving it—and he knew the Minister and the Ministry pretty well—he went to Smethwick and made a speech in which he said:
"The Government want to end private enterprise. They want to stifle the courage, honesty and the willingness to take risks that characterised the meat trade before the war."

1089
Here is a man who was the Minister's closest adviser. He was better placed than anyone else to measure the failure of Government policy, of which the introduction of this Order against which we are praying tonight, is one more indication. I am quite certain that we should do well, and the whole country would do well, to take to heart the concluding exhortation which Sir Henry made in the speech to which I refer. He said:
"Help to hasten the day when an honest trader can go into the world and buy for himself those goods he wants to satisfy his customers."
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Dye: I am anxious to know whether the peroration of the hon. Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) represents the policy of the Conservative Party if at any time it should become the Government of this country. The farming community are deeply interested in the subject. Is it the policy of those who are now opposing this Order that we should go back to the days when the private trader could go to all parts of the earth and buy cheap food and sell it here at a price well below the cost of production? If that is the policy, then let hon. Members opposite be quite clear about it.
In this country we as a people cannot live unless we can produce a large proportion of our own meat at home. During the years to which the hon. Member referred and since, among our finest herds of cattle in this country we have had frequent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, and in nearly every case the source of that disease was traced back to meat that came from the Argentine.
Mr. Nabarro: And fowl pest.
Mr. Dye: As the hon. Member, who has apparently just wakened up, says, fowl pest has also recently been imported into this country as a result of an effort to buy cheap poultry from countries on the Continent.
Mr. Nabarro Mr. Nabarro rose—
Mr. Dye: If I may be allowed to develop my argument, I shall be prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is now apparently very interested in this matter. We have seen some of our best cattle destroyed by a disease which has
1090
been imported from the Argentine, a country where the hon. Gentleman now wants any private trader—not the Government, nor under Government control—to buy any meat that is available, without any conditions as to whether it will again bring foot and mouth disease into this country—
Air Commodore Harvey: He did not say that at all.
Mr. Dye:—and also without regard to the price which they might pay for it. During the past two or three years His Majesty's Government have been following a policy of increasing the amount of meat that we produce at home, and the hon. Gentleman has pointed out that that has been so successful that we have had an increase of English meat in 1950, so that the Government have been able to say to the people in South America, "We cannot pay the price at which you are now holding us to ransom." It is the British farming community who have made that possible, and now the argument of the hon. Gentleman is that we should undo that by laying open our own cattle to the risk of infection and disease.
Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman now suggesting that the reason why the meat ration is being reduced is to prevent the Argentinian cattle spreading the infection of foot and mouth disease?
Mr. Dye: No, that is not my argument. My.argument is that if we are going to protect our own herds from disease being brought into the country, as has happened in the past, then there must be an element of control over the meat that does come into the country. We canno allow this danger of turning the traders free, as the hon. Gentleman says, to scour the world for meat which in the past has been such a great danger to the health of our herds.
What was the position of the farming community in the years the hon. Gentleman mentioned—between 1934 and 1938—when the imports of meat into this country from the Argentine were going up, and when those from the Commonwealth were going down? The arguments which the hon. Gentleman has advanced tonight were those put up previously by some members of the Conservative Party when they were in favour of developing trade with the Argentine, which was only

1091
carried out to the disadvantage of Australia. Therefore we have to ask ourselves whether we want a policy which is going to develop home production and protect that development from the infection of disease, and also develop production in the Commonwealth which can only be done on a long-term basis. Hon. Gentlemen should be most careful how they use arguments which have already been stated by people who are interested in forcing the Ministry of Food to pay higher prices to other countries. That is the basis of their argument tonight.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the insecurity and inflexibility of these longterm contracts. But how would the British people have been fed without them, when it is quite clear that those nations to which he referred, such as Holland, Belgium and other continental countries, have not had the advantage of a steady supply of meat at anything like the price the people of this country have had in the last four or five years?
I hope the Ministry of Food will have due regard to protecting our own cattle from possible infection. One of the reasons, I believe, why we did not jump at the chance of importing great quantities of pork from France was that the French could not give a guarantee that that pork was free from infection. It is of the utmost importance, not only in maintaining the ration, but for our ability to pay other countries, that we must have regard to controls such as are in this order. We may not like it when the ration is reduced, but let us face the fact that the principal reason for the increase, which has strengthened the bargaining power of the Ministry of Food, has been the great effort of the British farming community during the past year.
11.4 p.m.
Mr. Spence: I follow the hon. Gentleman in the tribute he has paid to the farming community of this country, but when he goes into political history and tries to trace the record of the Conservative Party on meat production in the years 1934–38, I should like him to look at the voting record and see which party went into the "No" Lobby on every move to benefit British farming by subsidies or guarantees. It has also been said by the hon. Gentle-
1092
man that there is great danger in bringing in meat from the Argentine. In the 12 months to July we had brought in some 218,000 tons, and what we seek to bring home in this debate is that where a nation such as ours is dependent on a foreign country, apart from the Commonwealth, for nearly one-fifth of its meat—which is a proportion we hoped to receive but never attained—there is a great danger that the whole of that supply is subject to one contract at one price from one source. There is always the danger in Government-to-Government negotiations of friction and the possibility of a total stoppage such as we have today. Before the war, the meat was bought, as the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware, by nearly 200 firms scattered over South America.
Mr. F. Wiley: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House this. Does he imagine that if we had 200 firms buying meat today, it would affect the Argentine system of selling?
Mr. Spence: Had bulk buying not been set up and organised by the Government it would have broken down a long time ago.
I should like to make a realistic approach to this matter, and remind the House that the housewife thinks of two things in connection with the meat ration: one is the cash value, and the other is the edible percentage. When we have nearly 20 per cent. of ewe mutton the edible percentage is very low. I went this morning to ask for a ration of ewe mutton, to see what it was like. I have it here. The edible percentage of this particular meat is only 30 per cent.
Mr. Willey: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman complain when he received that?
Mr. Spence: It was not a special cut. There was no complaint made. The conversation was roughly as follows: "Is it all as bad as this?" "No, some of it is worse." When we are dealing with the cash amount of the ration the House must consider the edible proportion of it. In former years, meat such as this would never have been sold over the counter. It would have been used solely for manufacturing purposes. This is delivered by the Ministry of Food as edible mutton.
Mr. Willey: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will assist me in this. If he will give me the fullest particulars I will make inquiries. Certainly, from this distance—and I say no more now—he has got meat which has the appearance of being manufacturing meat.
Mrs. Middleton: Does the hon. Member think the butcher saw him coming? Does he think the housewife—myself, for instance—would have accepted that?
Mr. Spence: The meat is issued to the butcher, and he has to make his ration go round. I have already said that approximately 20 per cent. of the meat is ewe mutton. When we are reducing the meat ration, as we are, can the Minister tell us anything about the supply of offal? Is it going up or down? Can he explain the answer he gave the House yesterday, when referring to the supply of pork? He said that the proportion of the Christmas meat ration—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to offal. I understand that offal is not part of the meat ration, and therefore that point does not arise.
Mr. Spence: That is a consideration. I return to my original point, that while we remain with a large proportion of our ration dependent on importation from a foreign country—we must do so—it is dangerous for it to go through one channel. This cut in the ration has come upon us as a result of our method of dealing.
11.10 p.m.
Mr. Daines: The only point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) that I wish to refer to is the record of the prewar Conservative Governments and the Government since 1945. I prefer to take as a test the fact that an agricultural labourer in Essex was getting 36s. 6d. a week in 1939 and is now getting £5 a week.
It is extremely interesting to note that when debates on meat are staged by the Opposition they invariably coincide with very delicate negotiations that are going on with the Argentine. I can remember the right hon. Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank), on the discussion of the Estimates, probing the question of a payment in the Estimates
1094
to a length that must have been extremely embarrassing to our negotiators at that time. We are driven to the conclusion that the Opposition are far more concerned about making party propaganda than they are with assisting the Government to do the best they can for the people.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to cast aspersions on myself and other hon. Members in this way? We are debating tonight an Order which was made by the Government and which had to be debated before tomorrow—otherwise we should have had no opportunity of doing so. Is it in order to say that we are deliberately raising the matter tonight to embarrass negotiations?
Mr. Speaker: It is not out of order, anyhow.
Mr. Daines: I am merely pointing out the obvious coincidence. I do not know why the hon. Member should be so touchy; he thoroughly enjoyed himself when he was talking.
I want seriously to raise another point. It is quite obvious, as the Parliamentary Secretary has already shown, that whatever hon. Members on the other side want—or their meat trading friends who are behind them want—the Argentine is so shaped, not only in terms of business management but in terms of the political set up, that unless there is a fundamental political change in the Argentine we cannot go back to the old free enterprise system. It is not only an economic but also a political question. What is the inference behind the Opposition's argument? They are claiming the right either to advise or interfere between the Argentine people and their Government and the system that they have desired, and I can well imagine that tomorrow the Peron Press will pick up that point and tell it to their people.
As a back bencher I can say what a lot of people cannot say. The plain fact is that the ordinary people of this country recognise, as I recognise, that there has been a constant process of blackmail by the Argentine Government against the people of this country and we have to stand up against it. At one stage of his speech the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) said that the people of this country are prepared to suffer even further diminution

1095
of their ration rather than give into blackmail. I believe that to be true. But his speech was not calculated to assist us. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member. If he would break off his conversation I want to address him again.
In one part of his speech the hon. Member complained that the Minister did not get supplies and referred to the supplies being obtained by defeated countries. What he did not point out was that they paid the prices we were not prepared to pay at that time. Then he challenged the Government because they had not secured meat in competition with Belgium. The fact is that the hon. Member, like all Tory propagandists, is prepared to say "Black," if it is required, or "White," if it is required, which is typical of their policy.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the great work going on in the development of farms, abattoirs and factories in Australia, in which all sides share a sense of pride. All of us look to the time when we are no longer dependent on Argentina and that dependency is replaced by supplies from our own Dominions and Commonwealth. We are all in agreement about that. But the hon. Gentleman did not point out, what he well knows to be the truth, that this scheme was made possible only by agreement between the two Governments on bulk supply and bulk purchase. The Australian Government and the Australian people would not look at the scheme for a single moment if it meant going back to the vagaries, the changes and chances, of the pre-war markets. When an hon. Member is making his points, he should give the whole case.
How the hon. Member who seconded the Motion squared up his speech tonight with the claim on the Tory placard about "Vote Conservative and fight the rise in the cost of living," when the whole of the policy he advocated visualised a rise in prices that was bound to eventuate from that policy I do not know.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I was really prevented by Mr. Speaker from developing that argument and saying exactly what I myself might do.
Mr. Daines: if you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker for saying so, I think you have allowed a pretty wide and broad discussion, and I do not think there was lack of opportunity for making the point. The plain fact is that this is the type of Prayer associated with the hon. Member for Eastbourne and his friends. Its primary purpose is not to deal with the subject matter but to make what party propaganda they can out of it. I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that while it has been the practice in the past—because suburban members have to catch their last trains at 11.35—to allow their arguments to pass without serious opposition from this side, these days are rapidly passing. If hon. Members opposite are prepared to scrap, we are prepared to stop and scrap, too.
11.20 p.m.
Mr. Crouch: I am pleased to be able to support the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). I am surprised that in this debate the emphasis has been laid on the meat we are getting from overseas. I propose to devote my time to the production of meat at home. I feel that had the Government paid more attention to the facts of life in 1945 before embarking on the Socialist honeymoon, today we would be getting an increased amount of mutton produced from our own soil and this Prayer would have been wholly unnecessary.
The position in 1939 was that we in this country were the largest mutton consumers in the world. Our consumption was some 28 lb. per head of the population as compared with 6.8 lb. in France, and 5.8 lb. in the United States. In 1939, we had in this country 25 per cent. of our livestock capital invested in sheep, and 10 per cent. of the sales of livestock were in mutton and wool. The policy we had from 1939 to 1945 was sound with regard to the production of sheep. We deliberately discouraged this production because it was considered right by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) that we should lower the large numbers of sheep we had in this country and use the land they occupied for the production of cereals.
To emphasise my point that the production was deliberately discouraged during the war years, I would remind the House that the price of wool in 1945 was

1097
only 103 compared with the pre-war price of 100, and the price of mutton 137 and of lamb 127. That policy, I believe, was sound and right during those years; but immediately after the war the policy should have been changed and, had my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport, the then Minister of Agriculture, remained in office, we should immediately have proceeded to develop the production of more livestock, both beef and mutton, in this country.
I would remind the House of what my right hon. Friend stated to the House on 5th December, 1944. He then said:
"It is contemplated that during the period of the four-year plan, ending in the summer of 1948, some change will be necessary in the character of our agricultural output to meet changing national requirements in the transition from war to peace. Broadly, the change will mean a gradual expansion of livestock and livestock products and a reduction from the high war-time levels of certain crops for direct human consumption.
The Government have already announced their desire to encourage a substantial increase in milk production and a revival in the rearing of cattle and sheep for meat production."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 366–7.]
The number of sheep we had in this country in 1939 was some 26 millions; in 1945 that had fallen to 19½ millions and that was the right policy. But, in 1949 we still continued to let the figure fall and the figure then—a very low one—was only some 16 millions.
Mr. Kenyon: Does the hon. Member not recognise the effects of the disastrous winter of 1946–47 when two million sheep died?
Mr. Crouch: Yes, I admit that, but I would ask how many sheep died last spring as a result of the continued dry season.
Mr. Kenyon: In neither case was the Government to blame.
Mr. Crouch: Had the Government increased the price of wool by some 50 per cent. we should have doubled the number of sheep we have living in our land and the hard-pressed housewife would be getting four times the amount of English mutton she is getting at present. If wool prices had been increased—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now discussing the price of wool. We are discussing the price of meat, and not wool.
Mr. Crouch: I am sorry, Sir, but my argument is that we should have increased the number of sheep kept in this country by some considerable amount, and in two years we should have doubled the weight of mutton above the figure we are having at the present time.
Instead of killing lambs in the summer and autumn of the year, they would have been kept through the winter and have been killed during the months of May, June and July at double the weight they would have been during the summer of the previous year. That would have been most advantageous to the farming community because, owing to the policy laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport, we had at these three peak summer months of the year large areas of succulent grass which could be consumed by a larger amount of sheep than we have at the present time.
If hon. Members opposite are concerned about and doubt my words as to the position about the consumption of this grass, I can do no better than quote the figures of sheep in my own county today as compared with ten years ago. They will find that answer given on 30th March by the Minister of Agriculture. We had in 1939, 150,000 sheep in Dorset. The Minister told me they have now fallen in 1949 to 46,000. There would have been a larger amount of sheep kept in our county bad there been greater encouragement given by the Government during the last five or six years.
I know that in 1947 a statement was made to encourage the farmers of this country to keep more sheep. The price of wool was raised to 159 per cent. above pre-war, mutton to 208 per cent. and lamb to 180 per cent., but it was too late. Had the policy of deliberate encouragement of sheep been pursued in 1945, instead of being left to this very late period, I am certain that a number of mutton chops would have been available—and not of the type my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence), produced. There would have been a very large number of first-quality mutton chops available to the British housewife at the present time.
I suggest to the Minister and to His Majesty's Government that they should adopt a policy which will deliberately encourage the production of sheep in this

1099
country so that we can raise our total flocks of sheep to the neighbourhood of 30,000,000 as compared with the 16,000,000 which is the latest available figure which I have been able to secure.
11.28 p.m.
Mr. Harrison: If I understand the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) correctly, he said that as a partial cure for our shortage of meat, we should increase the price by at least 50 per cent.
Mr. Crouch: I said raise the price of wool, and not the price of sheep. To substantiate that, according to the Press, at the Ministry of Supply's latest wool sale we sold Dorset Horn wool at 45 pence per lb. and it was re-sold for 145½ pence per lb.
Mr. Harrison: I assume from the suggestion the hon. Member made that if we increased the price of mutton or mutton produce or sheep produce—
Mr. Crouch: I said the price of wool.
Mr. Harrison: We are not discussing wool at the present time. Therefore, I must confine my remarks to meat. The moral of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that if we increased the price by as much as 50 per cent.—
Mr. Crouch: Of wool.
Mr. Harrison:—there is a possibility of making a considerable contribution to our meat supply.
Mr. Crouch: I did not suggest increasing the price of mutton or Iamb.
Mr. Harrison: The inference behind the whole of the hon. Member's speech was that my hon. Friend should consider that suggestion. We have all listened to the apparent humbug from the other side that we should reduce prices, but here we have a straightforward, unashamed proposal for increasing prices by 50 per cent.
This debate is concerned with the difficulties about meat supplies, which everybody on this side recognises. One of the contributory factors to those difficulties is that before the war people like myself, who lived in families like mine—and there are millions of them throughout the country—had their meat supply, in the main, in the form of sausages.
Air Commodore Harvey: Jolly good sausages, too.
Mr. Harrison: Good sausages, yes, but not as good as the beefsteaks of hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Turton: Would the hon. Member not admit that the best customers for British beefsteaks before the war were the Yorkshire and Durham miners?
Mr. Harrison: The best customers for any beefsteak at any time are the people who work hard. Unfortunately, the short time which miners had before the war prevented them from buying many beefsteaks at even their then price. People like myself had sausages, and we had them regularly. But things are not the same today. We can afford to buy a bit of meat occasionally, and we do not buy the sort of meat which was shown to us from the Front Bench opposite a few minutes ago; we can get better meat than that. The ordinary people throughout the land can afford to buy more meat now than they could before. That is a contributory factor towards the shortage.
The best way to cure the shortage, we are told, is to put up the price by 50 or 100 per cent., but that is not a policy which we on this side intend to adopt if we can possibly avoid it.
Mr. Nabarro All Mr. Nabarro All starve in misery together.
Mr. Harrison: Everybody agrees that the position regarding meat supplies is difficult. The Prayer, however, is consistent with the usual behaviour which we witness from the other side of the House, and it is not inconsistent with the attitude of hon. Members opposite ever since 1945. The position is difficult, and this is an opportunity for the Opposition to take advantage of those difficulties—
Mr. Crouch: Hon. Members opposite have had the chance of remedying them for several years.
Mr. Harrison:—for the purpose of whipping the Government. That is the only purpose behind the Motion.
I believe that the hon. Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley)—I notice that he is no longer present; probably be has gone home—has some trading experience, but the only thing which we could not get him to discuss

1101
tonight was the price of the meat. He talked about anything else, but would not admit that price entered into the picture. We have heard it said that a single buyer can go into a market and obtain meat at a certain price, but it is now suggested that we should send 40 buyers into the same market and that in doing so we should get the meat at the same price.
Yet the hon. Member has business experience. Do we not know better than that? Does he not know better than that? I suggest that he does. What the Prayer is designed to do is to persuade the Government to permit to some of the meat buyers, the liberty they had before the war in order to make excessive profits out of the urgent need that this country has to obtain Argentine meat.
11.35 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: We have had some eloquence and gymnastics from the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison). He gave a contorted version of a baron of beef. I do not think anyone—
Mr. Harrison: The hon. Member referred to me as a contortionist. Can he tell me of any contortion which I made in my arguments?
Mr. Fraser: Most of the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite this evening appear to surround this subject with mumbo-jumbo on the grounds that it will lead to a failure of the negotiations now going on with the Argentine. Hon. Members opposite must not be so innocent as to believe that figures which are or are not available to this House of stocks of meat are entirely unavailable to the world meat trade and to the Argentine; and really, to think that by coming to this House and saying that the people of this country want more meat is something which will destroy our chances of success with the Argentine, is more than childish. Does the hon. Member seriously believe that the Government in the Argentine believe that this country does not want more meat?
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Does the hon. Member really suggest that the Argentine Government will not be encouraged by the existence of a pressure group in this House in their favour?
Mr. Fraser: It is not a matter of a pressure group that the people of this country are down to two-thirds of the meat they had before the war. Is it not natural that they should want more meat? Arguments of that sort just fall completely to the ground. One of the reasons my hon. Friend has moved this Prayer is that we can only move it tonight because tomorrow—unless it is prayed against—this Order becomes law. This is the fourth adjustment of the meat ration, and if it happens to coincide with the Argentine negotiations, that is purely fortuitous.
We believe that the country is short of meat: the people could do with more meat today, particularly those engaged in heavy industry. Do not tell me that it is impossible for a man earning or £8 a week to spend 1s. 6d. a week on the meat ration. We believe that our people need more meat and deserve more meat. We further believe that if the matter were properly organised that meat could be obtained. Our accusation against the Government is simply that the Government, after five years of experience, still arrogates to itself a position of being the nation's butcher. We know what happens to butchers down the streets today. People are rude to them: and we propose to be rude to the Government in exactly the same way. We believe it is absolutely unnecessary that the Government should have taken on this rôle of national butcher.
We believe that, on the whole, the Government's meat policy can be attacked on three main grounds. First, there is the question of bulk purchase. Hon. Members opposite say that the Government employ the best brains in the industry. I believe that is perfectly true. In the Argentine I have met some of the people working for the Ministry of Food. They stand very high in the industry, and did so pre-war, but there is just this difference: Before the war they were working for their own gain and profit. They had to make decisions which might have cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds, or might have gained them profits of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Today they are only automatic representatives of the Government carrying out the behests sent them from London. There is no variation and give and take of trade which has made this country

1103
produce the best race of traders, especially in international commodities, that has ever been seen.
Mr. Daines: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that the same people, because they are now State servants, are not giving the same service with the same sense of integrity as they did formerly.
Mr. Fraser: I am not saying that. There is all the difference in the world between a free agent and a person who is a Government servant and is tied by decisions which are made not by him any longer but by a remote force in London. I am making no accusation. I said that they are extremely able people, but it is impossible to make a person, however able he may be, function inside a system which cannot function.
Mr. Woods: The hon. Member is not taking into account the fact that whereas before the war these efficient buyers were dealing almost directly with the producers, now the situation is completely changed. He knows that as well as I do. The only agent they can deal with is the Argentine Government, and that Government is raising a considerable proportion of its revenue by buying cheaply from the producers and selling dearly on the world market.
Mr. Fraser: That is not true in the case of bulk purchase. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that this Argentine institution has been set up chiefly as an answer to our bulk purchasing.
The other argument about bulk purchase is very simple. We know full well that in the Argentine today great hardship is being caused to ex-workers of the British railways, but whenever negotiations begin Questions are immediately asked by hon. Members—quite honest, good and proper Questions about those railway workers. The same applies to matters concerning the Falkland Islands, and so on. But how is it possible to negotiate across a table when the whole time we have a political Sturm and Drang rushing backwards and forwards? We have seen in the New Zealand and Canadian Press the sort of thing that happens. We have seen the attacks on the Government for not seeing that the New Zealand meat was properly exhibited and stored. These matters can
1104
be seen by looking them up in the trade Press and in the reports of Questions asked in the House.
Another thing the Government have failed to do is to see that not merely is the right quantity obtainable but that the quality is up to the standard that we in this country deserve. A great deal of the meat which comes from South America is not of the best character. It is of the continental kind which used to go to the poorer European countries. We fully realise that this country and the whole world are faced with a shortage of meat, compared with before the war, but that shortage is not so acute that this country, if it was using efficient sources, efficient people, and an efficient system, would not be able to meet the present 1s. 7d. ration.
Further, once the eventual aim is reached of meeting this ration, there should be a supplementary ration, unsubsidised, for those who want it. I believe the miners, the foundry workers, and everyone engaged in heavy industry, and people able to afford it should be allowed to spend their money in their own way. It is ridiculous that the Government should impose certain standards of meat consumption on a people who have been one of the greatest meat eating nations in the world.
That ration could be met with the present subsidies and at the present prices. There are a great many areas where we could have gone and found that meat. Above all other sources, there is Eire which has exported meat to Spain, America and other parts of the world. We know that the Eireaan Minister of Agriculture went home amazed at the fact that we were not prepared to buy more cattle on the hoof and more killed in Ireland. What has happened to that promise of 100,000 tons from Uruguay? Not a ton, I believe, was delivered.
Yet we are buying canned meat at ridiculously high prices. I will not give a specific case because I do not want to hurt the negotiations. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) talked about the danger of foot and mouth disease. There is far too much foot and mouth round this place already. Too much of the money spent by Government Departments at present goes on canned meat when a higher price could have been paid in Europe. The same could be said of Brazil where we could

1105
have got the 200,000 tons needed to meet the ration. So there was Uruguay, Brazil, the southern states of Mexico, now free from foot and mouth disease above Tampico, and of course above all, Eire.
If the Government had foreseen these difficulties—which were forseeable by everyone in 1945—of a time of expanding trade, with the turn of trade against industrial nations, we could have done much more to see that the cattle were raised in this country. If the buyers and the trade had been allowed to operate from 1945 in these markets we could have met not only the 1s. 7d. ration, but could have carried out a scheme permitting people to buy more on a points system. It is no good building our hopes on the Northern Australian scheme nor the Bechuanaland cattle scheme because neither will bear fruit for 10, 15, or 20 years. What the people want is meat, and that is precisely what the Government are failing to give them.
11.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): Whatever the merits of the different systems, I hope no one will subscribe to the notion that those directing these negotiations are less sensitive to the national interest than they were to those of private bodies. That simply is not the case.
Mr. Fraser: I hope I did not give that impression. I want to correct it if I did. What I did say was that under this system it was impossible for them to function in the same way because the pressure on the men had been removed to a central body in London, whose agent they became, and to whom they sacrificed their decision and power of action.
Mr. Willey: The scope and extent of the decision is immeasurably larger, and so is the responsibility of the official directing the negotiations.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) opened the Debate with a number of figures that were largely inaccurate, and a number of arguments that were entirely fallacious. He said that the last thing he wanted to do was to embarrass negotiations with Argentina. I hope that remains the wish and desire of the House. There has been a good deal of talk about bulk purchase. I think I can do no better than quote the hon. Member
1106
for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), who said, last year:
"If we were to confine the purchase of meat to competing private traders in present circumstances, the price could and would be forced up to calamitous heights. We should still get no more meat than the Argentine Government are now prepared to give us and they would get a lot more money, at the expense of the British public. This is a purely practical question and there is really no need for either side to turn it into an article of political faith. Some commodities are obviously best handled by private traders in comparatively free markets. Others—notably wheat, meat, and sugar—should as obviously he purchased at fixed prices through the medium of contracts extending over considerable periods."
There is a good deal in that. Hon. Members of the Opposition must face this, because they have been saying a good deal recently about the cost of living. They have been talking about marginal supplies, but these very small marginal supplies are available at very high prices. It is open to them to argue that the purchase of meat for this country should be set free, but it is not open to them to argue, at the same time, that they are concerned with the cost of living.
This debate has a very limited scope On 17th September, as one hon. Member expected I might say, the meat ration was increased from 1s. 6d. to 1s. 7d., and it was announced at that time that the increase was not expected to be maintained more than a few weeks. In that forecast we have been absolutely right: The present Order, as from 15th October, restores what has been the stable ration to 1s. 6d. That has been the ration level for most of the year. If we compare the position with 1949, the average ration figures—making allowance for price changes—show that the ration has averaged 1s. 6½d., which compares favourably with 1s. 3¼d. the year before.
It has been our desire, so far as available supplies have allowed, to maintain the ration at 1s. 6d., but from August onwards the level of the meat ration was largely determined by the amount of home stock marketed. This has for some time presented a serious problem. Home-killed meat cannot be frozen as we have not the necessary facilities, and in any case it would deteriorate. So, the first thing we have sought to do has been to even out, as far as possible, the supplies of meat. There have been some price adjustments, but there is a limit to the extent that we can go. We have to pay

1107
some attention to the point of view of the National Farmers' Union. We cannot load the price against nature.
It will always be the case that as the grass goes off the cattle will be brought in. This is the problem, and we shall have to continue to discuss it with the agricultural departments and the farmers. We have also sought to contain and to conserve supplies coming in as much as possible, but by mid-September it was no longer possible to hold any further stock in the livestock pools we had set up and the only way to avoid embarrassing the farmers by restricting entries was to increase the meat ration, which we did on 17th September. But by mid-October the peak of home killings had been passed. They were no longer sufficient to support a 1s. 7d. ration, so we returned to the 1s. 6d. ration.
Hon. Members opposite who are talking about the Argentine should let the House know where they stand, because if that be the case—that home-killed stock would no longer support the 1s. 7d. ration—upon what grounds are they asking tonight that the 1s. 7d. ration should be continued? That is their case in opposing this Order. I can see no alternative to that conclusion. No one suggested tonight that the home-killed supplies are sufficient to continue to maintain a 1s. 7d. ration.
Mr. Crouch: I suggested that if—
Mr. Willey: I am not dealing with any hypothetical question, but with the facts that face the House at the moment. No one, in fact, has made that suggestion. When we review the progress made with home-killed stocks we should express some appreciation of those who have handled them in difficult circumstances and record at least some modest satisfaction at the amount that has come forward. The figures given by the hon. Member for Eastbourne were not correct. For the months January-October this year the amount of home-produced stock has been 758,400 tons, which is a substantial improvement on the 614,500 tons for the corresponding period last year.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: My figures are January to August, the last that were available.
Mr. Wiley: That may explain the discrepancy, but at the time those figures did not seem to accord with the figures I have just given to the House, even allowing for the difference. The figures of the hon. Gentleman about imports were certainly wrong.
In the case of New Zealand we take 98 per cent. of the total exportable surplus, which, today, is more meat than New Zealand supplied us with before the war. Where do hon. Members opposite stand on the question of bulk purchase? So far, no one has differentiated; they have attacked bulk purchase at large. What are we to say to the New Zealanders? They have made very creditable progress in improving their meat supplies since the end of the war, and they have the benefit of this bulk purchase contract under which we take 98 per cent. of their supplies.
Now for the case of Australia. It is a fact that Australia is supplying us with less meat today than she did before the war, but we are taking the whole of the exportable surplus. How can we take more than the whole? That is the position. In spite of taking the whole of Australia's exportable surplus we must do what we can to encourage her to increase her production, and we now are negotiating a 15-year contract. Notwithstanding the fall in Australian meat supplies, we are receiving more meat from the Commonwealth today than we were before the war.
We depend, and have always depended, on four main suppliers. I have dealt with two—the two major Commonwealth suppliers, New Zealand and Australia. The other two main suppliers are Uruguay and Argentina. In the case of Uruguay we are receiving more meat today than we did pre-war—that is, up to the suspension of shipments in the summer. In the case of Argentina, we are receiving less and, as has been said, shipments have been held up since July and negotiations are proceeding which no one wants to prejudice. But in the case of Argentina we have to recognise that local circumstances affect the amount of the exportable surplus. Hon. Members cannot come to the House and fairly complain on the ground of price and then come back and complain on the ground of quantity.

1109
There has been some discussion of marginal supplies, a matter which has been raised in previous debates. The answer is simple. If the country depends upon four main suppliers, it is surely to these suppliers that we must look first. If we are to run this country on businesslike lines, we cannot allow small marginal suppliers, who would affect the overall position very little, to affect the prices we are paying to the main suppliers. When hon. Members talk about a little bit of meat here and a little bit of meat there they must realise that these bits of meat, bought at a very high price, would prejudice the whole position of this country with our four main suppliers.
There has been some talk about quality. Anyone with experience of the meat trade knows that this is not the time of year in which we get complaints about quality. The major part of the ration for the recent period has been home-killed meat and for that reason we have not had so many complaints as we have had hitherto. As for the hon. Member who showed a piece of meat to the House, if he will provide me with the meat after the debate I will see that proper investigations are made, and that, if necessary, proceedings are taken.
Mr. Awbery: And report back to the House.
Mr. Willey: It is rather childish to produce and wave about a piece of meat about which we have received no complaint and about which no complaint has been made to the butcher. I think this is most unfair. The butchers have their own organisation and retail buying groups and they themselves control allocation. It is most unfair to the butcher and his colleagues to come to the House and complain in this way of unfair allocation.
I have no more to say. If there be a genuine desire to avoid embarrassing any negotiations which are now taking place with Argentina, then there can be no other course for the House to follow than to approve the reduction of the ration from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 6d.
12.5 a.m.
Mr. Turton: We have had a very disappointing reply from the Parliamentary Secretary. None of us wants to say anything during this debate—and we have been hampered by it—that will embarrass negotiations at present
1110
going on in Argentina. But we who represent our constituents, must complain of the attitude which the Parliamentary Secretary takes as regards the 1s. 6d. ration as a normal ration for the British citizen. After all, it was one of his own representatives at the Ministry of Food, Professor Fenelon, who said we were eating less meat than Denmark, Switzerland, France and Sweden, and that before the war we ate more than any country except Denmark. But now there are three other countries that are eating more than us.
Mr. Wiley: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to be unfair, and if he complains that we are not eating sufficient meat, he really should say where we could get more supplies.
Mr. Turton: The Parliamentary Secretary has an aggravating habit of interrupting before he hears the answer. I will tell him. We on this side have always maintained that a greatly increased production of beef and mutton, to say nothing of pork and bacon, could have come from the farmers of this country. That has always been our contention, but what is the Parliamentary Secretary's answer? The hon. Gentleman says, "I am not dealing with a hypothetical question"; but the question is the failure of himself, and particularly of his predecessors at the Ministry of Food, to supply the producers in this country with the necessary feeding-stuffs. If the present Secretary of State for War had, when Minister of Food, made adequate supplies available to our farmers, there would not have been the necessity to reduce the ration as it was done on 15th October.
Mr. Harrison: Does the hon. Member discount completely the question of feedingstuffs being in such short supply?
Mr. Turton: I was going to talk of maize which went to Ireland when it should have come here, and of maize which we should have had but which went to other countries; and of linseed cake going to other countries rather than to Britain. That is the complaint we make as regards home production, and when the Parliamentary Secretary says the farmers cannot be induced to keep their bullocks longer, let him remember that his Ministry has failed to supply the farmers with the linseed cake they need for fattening in the yard. I do not want to turn this short

1111
debate on a Prayer into a long argument on meat production at home but we say that is the first charge we bring against the Government in this matter.
Secondly, after all the hopes they have held out of greater Empire production, the results of imports from the Empire this year have been very disappointing. From Australia we have had 13,000 tons less than in 1948. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We heard complaints, I know, of weather conditions in Australia, but with the working of a proper Empire policy we should have had better imports from the Empire than we have had. Let me take up the challenge of the Parliamentary Secretary on this point.
We believe the right way of dealing with this question of trading in meat with the Empire would have been to give the producers an overall guarantee. That has always been the policy of hon. Members on this side. Having given that overall guarantee of markets, we believe there would be rcom for the private trader to follow up by buying the meat from the different parts of the Empire. We believe that to be in conformity with the recommendations made by the New Zealand Meat Council. We say, first the home producer, and then the Empire, and the balance from foreign countries.
We have had this diplomatic quarrel which has meant no meat since July from the Argentine. I cannot understand why that argument was used by the Parliamentary Secretary to apply to the imports from the Uruguay. We have no quarrel with Uruguay. Those who know South America know that this country has no greater friend than Uruguay. The "Financial Times" in July was telling us that Uruguay was willing to sell us 100,000 tons of meat, which is no small amount. Yet, there have been no imports from the Uruguay since July.
Finally, the Parliamentary Secretary gave no reply to the question why in these last few months meat has been going from the Irish Free State, or Eire, to Germany and the United States. Bullocks have been going to Belgium and Holland from Eire and not coming to this country. These are new markets.
1112
There has been a failure by the Government buyers to encourage the meat ration to come from our neighbours in Eire, and that has not been replied to at all.
What has struck me, looking at this position, is that whilst we had this great short-fall in imports of fresh meat, and a failure to maintain the ration, the Government have spent, during this year, £24,000,000 on 100,000 tons of tinned meats which are off the ration. That is, I believe, a very serious position that has developed in the meat rationing system. If we had spent that £24,000,000 on fresh meat it would have meant a very large increase in meat to the consumers of this country. That meat has come in tins off the ration not at any subsidised price, but at a very high price. In fact, the average price of these imports has been £240 a ton.
I do ask the Parliamentary Secretary to overhaul and think over the policy in that direction. I do not want to belabour this point because of certain negotiations going on. It is quite wrong for this Government to operate their present buying policy so that meat is shipped out of South America to Europe at a price maybe that is higher than we are offering to pay, and then comes back after being processed or canned to this country at a very high price off the ration, so that only those who are well enough able to afford it can buy it. That is what the Government's buying policy has led to. I believe they are making a very grave mistake.
It would be far better to adopt our line of giving guaranteed prices to farmers in this country and the Empire and be ready to pay a good price under that guarantee, and to leave the negotiations with foreign countries to private traders which will result, as the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), said, in our getting plenty of cheap meat for the balance we cannot produce for ourselves here or in the Empire.
Mr. Willey: If I understand the hon. Gentleman aright, he is now advancing the argument that guaranteed prices should apply both to home-produced and Commonwealth-produced meat and that there should be a free market for the meat which comes in from South America. Surely, he would recognise that the price

1113
in the one case must react upon the price of the other? The two matters cannot he kept divorced.
Mr. Turton: What the Parliamentary Secretary does not realise is that this country is the biggest market for meat in the world. If we give the first place to our home farmers and to the Empire, there will be competition amongst the other producing countries to come to this market; they will want to get in. Therefore, we shall get cheaper meat as we did before the war.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) 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 an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 11th October, 1950, entitled the Meat (Rationing) (Amendment No. 4) Order, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 1660), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th October, 1950, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled,"
put accordingly, and negatived.

DWELLING-HOUSES (ASSESSMENT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Royle.)
12.15 a.m.
Mr. J. R. Bevins: I am very glad of the opportunity, even at this late hour, of raising the question of the re-assessment of dwelling-houses in England and Wales. I should like, first, to give the House a little of the background to what is now taking place throughout the country.
Hon. Members will remember that when the 1948 Local Government Act received its Second Reading in the House, the Minister of Health advanced three propositions. I am not discussing these tonight, but mention them merely for the purpose of giving the background. The first of these propositions was that the old system of block grants to local authorities should be replaced by equalisation grants, which should be paid on the basis of the need of local authorities. This need was to be determined by the difference between the national average
1114
weighted rateable value and the local weighted rateable value of particular localities.
The second proposition was that if weighted rateable value in the case of any one locality was to be a fair measure of need, then, obviously, the assessments of properties throughout the country must be uniform, partly for the sake of equity in the payment of grants, and partly for the sake of equity as between tenants of properties. The third proposition was that there should be a central valuation of all property throughout the country, to be undertaken by the Board of Inland Revenue. So, in short, there was to be a new basis of Government grants to local authorities, which relied for its equity on uniform assessments of property throughout the country.
In the case of private dwelling-houses it was, of course, recognised by the Minister that if we were to persist in the old basis of assessment, on the foundation of what a hypothetical tenant would pay for the rent of a house, then the assessments of many private dwelling-houses would rocket sky-high and it might even become impossible for large sections of the community to live in their houses.
It was therefore decided that as regards pre-1918 houses—those built before the First World War—the assessment should be based very largely on 1938 rents. As regards post-1918 houses—houses built after the First World War; this category includes both municipal houses and others which are within the range of the Rent Restriction Acts—it was decided that the Minister should issue statements in respect of the various rating authorities throughout the country, giving standards whereby the authorities should judge the hypothetical building costs of those properties in 1938. The idea of the Minister, of course, was that once the hypothetical 1938 building cost had been determined, a site value should then be added, and that a figure of something like 5 per cent. of the result should be taken, which would give the gross value for assessment purposes.
On these post-1918 houses, I should like to pass one or two observations. The Minister of Health was empowered by the Local Government Act to issue these statements after consulting with local authorities. My information is that these statements, in their draft form, were, in

1115
fact, referred to local authorities, who were given a period of about three weeks in which to pass on their observations to the Minister. There then followed a delay of 12 or 13 months, during which nobody quite seems to know what went on either at the Department or at the Board of Inland Revenue. There must have been a good deal of heart-searching and a good deal of misgiving as to what actually should have been done and that delay is, I think, rather significant.
This particular statement refers to the city which I have the honour to represent in part, the County Borough of Liverpool. The idea is that the Minister says to the Board of Inland Revenue, "Here are six alternative specifications for the post-1918 houses. We expect the valuers of the Board to decide into which specifications the house falls, to discover the area of the house and, by the table at the back, to assign the 1938 hypothetical building costs. As the journal, "Local Government Finance," says:
"The value to be given to variations from the specifications is presumably where the entertainment side of this procedure commences."
How right they are, because if we check, for example, specification "B," which depends upon 17 different factors, we find: "Quarry tile or composition to solid floors. Deal boarded floors elsewhere." Then, in the next specification, we read: "Quarry tile or composition to solid floors. Deal boarded floors elsewhere," which is precisely the same. If we look under joinery fixtures the same descriptions apply to specifications "C" and "D." They are almost identical, with only one word of difference—and that is the case right throughout these specifications.
I recently put a Question to the Minister of Health in an endeavour to find out how he could possibly justify the widely different assessments of houses of the same area in the same locality, both of which had been built after 1918. On specification "B" it was put at £606 while on specification "F" it was £1,213. In his reply, the right hon. Gentleman said that the figures related to houses of widely different construction standards. That may be the case; there are differences in the standards of construction, but does the Parliamentary Secretary seriously intend to argue that in the case
1116
of two houses of exactly the same size, built in exactly the same area, those differences are so great as to justify, in one case, a hypothetical 1938 building cost of over £600 and, in the other, one of over £1,200?
The Minister says that those differences are to allow for differences in construction. I suggest that they do not allow for anything of the sort and that the only reason why the Minister of Health has permitted such latitude in the decision relating to these gross capital figures is because the heart of his statement is completely beyond the interpretation of the staffs of the Inland Revenue. He has had to allow that latitude for the simple reason that this is the most frightening and formidable document that has ever been issued from his Department.
The Parliamentary Secretary is a modest man, and I am sure that neither he nor any of his advisers really understand what these statements were supposed to do. It was all very well for the Minister, in 1948, when he introduced the Local Government Act, to dwell on the beauties of uniformity in valuation, but he is discovering, in 1950, that there is an enormous difference between glib words about uniformity and transforming that uniformity into something that is of real practical value. Indeed, when the 1948 Act was debated in this Chamber the Minister said:
"… the valuation laws applying to cottage property are weird and wonderful… As far as one can gather, they can just as easily depend upon the emotions of the valuer as upon the property he is considering."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 997–8.]
No more appropriate words could be found for this monstrous administrative tangle for which the Minister of Health is himself responsible.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain not only how this is supposed to be interpreted, but how uniformity can be attempted either within areas or as between different rating areas? Will he also tell the House how many men are being used on this central valuation during the next three years, and will he give some idea of the cost? I estimate that no less than £10 million will be spent on this task during three or four years. The Minister, in answer to a further Question recently, went so far as to say that an effective start had been made in

1117
the re-valuation and re-assessment of dwelling-houses. That is not my information.
I am told that there is the most profound disquiet among officials of the Inland Revenue in many parts of the country as to the way in which they are being asked to administer this task. I should like to quote two statements which have been made recently, one by Mr. J. D. Trustram Eve who knows a little more about valuation and rating than any hon. Member now in the House. He said:
"I would repeal these provisions and when the valuation lists were complete under the 1925 Act definition of gross value I would examine them and, if any hardship were apparent, relieve it by some subvention or by a manipulation of the deductions from gross to rateable values."
There have been a number of letters in the Press protesting about the way this administration is being put through. There was one in the "Sunday Times" two weeks ago from the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Hornsey Borough Council, in which he said that the purpose was ostensibly to create uniformity throughout the country but added:
"That this objective will be achieved is the subject of considerable doubt in the minds of experts, and one is bound to wonder whether, in fact, more anomalies will he created than are likely to be remedied."
My last point is this. If it is not to be possible to produce anything approaching a uniform valuation throughout the country, partly on the basis of this statement and partly on the basis of other administrative provisions, how can the Minister possibly justify the new system of equalisation grants? The very foundation of those grants is that there should be equality of assessment throughout the country. My submission is that equality of assessment is an impossibility under the present administrative arrangements and, therefore, the system of equalisation grants is bound to be as unfair in the future as it is today.
12.30 a.m.
Mr. Black: I should like to add a few words to what has been said already by my hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins) about the difficulties arising out of the administrative arrangements which are the subject of this debate. This matter, in my own con-
1118
stituency, has been the subject of correspondence between the borough council and the Ministry because we have anticipated just the difficulties, which are now only too evident, to which my hon. Friend referred. I think that it is interesting to note that the very difficulties to which we are referring tonight were foreseen by many competent people at the time the Local Government Bill of 1948 was before the House, and I would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary, and the House, of one or two things said at that time by competent bodies which are now being proved, in the event, to be only too correct.
In 1948 the "Municipal Review," which is, of course, the organ of the Association of Municipal Corporations, said:
"There seemed little ground for thinking that they (the Government's proposals) would present any advantage as a basis for greater equity and uniformity in valuation, as compared with the present method of valuation upon a comparable hypothetical rent from year to year. In fact, the proposals would have created a lack of uniformity to the detriment of the uniformity which had so far been reached."
The other quotation is from the Council of the Incorporated Association of Rating and Valuation Officers—a professional body which has a greater wealth of experience of valuation problems than probably any other professional body in the country. This was their judgment:
"Having carefully considered examples of different types of dwelling-houses coming within this Clause (small, post-1918 dwelling-houses) the Council are of the opinion that it i3 practically impossible to operate the provisions which have been laid down whereby gross values are to be fixed by reference to specifications which have been passed by the Minister on the cost of constructing houses in 1938."
In my own constituency, the borough treasurer of one of my boroughs, who, for some years, was the rating valuation officer to the borough council, worked out a number of examples on how the new arrangements would operate. I will content myself, in conclusion, with giving only one example to the House—not an extreme example, but a typical one from quite a number of average properties in my constituency. This relates to the case of a street in which half the houses were demolished during the war as a result of enemy action and rebuilt under cost-of-works payment. We now have half the road consisting of pre-1918 houses, and

1119
the other half consisting of better and more modern houses, only recently rebuilt, but otherwise very similar to the houses which stood on the site before. At present the pre-1918 house in that road is rated at £26 a year whereas a rebuilt house is rated at £28 a year—the slightly higher figure on the rebuilt house giving expression, of course, to the slightly greater value on account of the fact that the house is more modern.
Under the new administrative arrangements, so we are advised by the former rating and valuation officer, the rateable value of the pre-1918 house will go up to £48 compared with £26 at present, whereas the rateable value of the recently built house will be £22 compared with £26 at present. The old pre-1918 house will be likely to have a rateable value of £48, whereas the better, more modern, recently rebuilt house in the same road, will have a rateable value of less than half that. There is, I think, an overwhelming case for asking the Ministry to give some indication of what their intentions are, in view of the chaotic condition into which the operation of the new administrative arrangements will bring the rating system.
12.36 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): The hon. Member has not left me time to say much about the Government's intentions. We are operating the provisions of the Act, and we cannot discuss, on an adjournment Motion, any question of review of that Act. Let me deal with some of the points the hon. Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins) raised with reference to opportunities for consultation with local authorities. They were given not three weeks but six weeks in which to indicate their views, and in several cases, including that of the City of Liverpool, discussions were entered into on the basis of certain suggestions they put forward; and, in the light of their recommendations, certain reductions were made. It is clear that, in fact, local authorities were given an opportunity of putting their point of view, and when they did so there was reasonable give and take.
I understand that the great mass of local authorities accepted the proposals we put to them. It is true that it is our
1120
desire to secure a uniform basis for assessment throughout the country, but we do not expect to secure—and I do not think the hon. Member was really mixing these two things up—a uniform valuation as such, in the sense that we do not expect to impose a "one value house" throughout the country. What we are attempting to achieve is a fairer way of getting at the actual value, and although the hon. Member made several points about the valuations in the different sections of the statements we have published, I think it was a little unfair to pick out one or two examples where the specification is not varied between specifications "A," "B," and "C."
If one took a fairer example, the comparison between the extreme specifications "B" and "F" of a house of 1,600 sq. ft., one would find a very considerable variation in the quality and type of materials used, which fully justifies the difference in values attached to these two specifications. In quality and construction specification "B" is "fair"; "F" is "excellent." Consider this: walls in specification "B"—facing bricks 65s. per 1,000, in specification "F," 125s. per 1,000; the roof, asbestos slates in one case and hand made clay tiles in the other; fireplaces, £14 in one case and £58 in the other; central heating—none in one and six radiators in the other.
There is thus full justification for the difference in valuation, but hon. Members must not make the mistake of imagining that we are expecting the valuers to classify every house within one of the six specifications. These are merely the initial guide to the valuer, after which he must make any necessary variation. In very many cases, indeed, there will be no house to fit into one specification alone: some houses might do that, but many would not. Therefore, it would be the duty of the valuer to make variations to fit the actual case of the house that he is valuing. That is surely not an impossible task for the valuer, who, in the past, has not had any such basis upon which to work.
Mr. Bevins: I understand that if, for example, there is a possibility of one dwelling-house falling in one of three alternative specifications the valuers have, in fact, had instructions how they shall act in putting them into one or other of

1121
those specifications. If not, what are they supposed to do?
Mr. Blenkinsop: All I am saying is that the valuers are not expected to put houses into only one of the six categories. They have got to have regard to the values of the different specifications, tabled here, in assessing a particular house that may, as the hon. Member says, fit into three, or, in some cases more, specification tables. That is not an impossible task for valuers. In the past, we have had some 1,500 rating authorities in the country, all with their different bases of assessment on which to work. Now we have got down to some 27 different sets of figures—that is to say, the same type of statement that has been prepared for Liverpool is now applicable, no doubt, to many other authorities as well. Throughout the country we have got something much nearer to a stable and equitable basis on which assessments can be made. That is a real advance.
Comment has also been made about the factual basis upon which the figures have been prepared. In fact, the 1937–38 construction costs are. in most cases, the local authority costs, which are known, and it is upon those known figures that these
1122
tables have been prepared. There are, clearly, variations between the cost of one specification and another and there has been no attempt to put uniform values upon all houses. It has been argued that instead of issuing a statement with six separate specifications we should have issued a statement with fewer. Four was the number suggested. If that had been done the number of variations that would have been required on the part of the valuer himself would have been very much greater.
There is one further point I want to make. The relation between the values attached to different specifications is now the same in all rating areas. That is a further step towards securing effective basic standards throughout the country. We are satisfied that there has been full opportunity for the local authorities to discuss this.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour. Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAK ER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen Minutes to One o'Clock.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Coal Supplies
  Coal Supplies
  Motor Vehicles (Duties)
  Motor Vehicles (Duties)
  Old Age Pensioners (Tobacco Concession)
  Old Age Pensioners (Tobacco Concession)
  Military Operations, Malaya (Cost)
  Military Operations, Malaya (Cost)
  Double Taxation (India)
  Double Taxation (India)
  Nationalised Industries (Taxation)
  Nationalised Industries (Taxation)
  Overseas Parcels (Inspection)
  Overseas Parcels (Inspection)
  Canada and U.S.A. (Financial Aid)
  Canada and U.S.A. (Financial Aid)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Retired Railwaymen (Tobacco Concession)
  Retired Railwaymen (Tobacco Concession)
  Post-war Credits
  Post-war Credits
  Miners' Earnings (Taxation)
  Miners' Earnings (Taxation)
  CANADA (MINISTER'S VISIT)
  CANADA (MINISTER'S VISIT)
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Reservists (Pay)
  Reservists (Pay)
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (STAFF)
  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (STAFF)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Law of Copyright
  Law of Copyright
  Textile Machinery, Lancashire and Yorkshire
  Textile Machinery, Lancashire and Yorkshire
  Newsprint
  Newsprint
  Timber Imports, Sharpness
  Timber Imports, Sharpness
  Price Controls
  Price Controls
  Traders' Stocks (Prices)
  Traders' Stocks (Prices)
  Bloodstock Sales (Dollar Earnings)
  Bloodstock Sales (Dollar Earnings)
  Utility Goods (Prices)
  Utility Goods (Prices)
  Farmers (Bankruptcy)
  Farmers (Bankruptcy)
  Football Pools (Paper)
  Football Pools (Paper)
  War Damage Claims
  War Damage Claims
BRITISH ARMY
  American Equipment
  American Equipment
  Troops, Korea
  Troops, Korea
  Military Depot, Kenya
  Military Depot, Kenya
  Member's Letter
  Member's Letter
  Troopship (Voyage)
  Troopship (Voyage)
  Reservists (Overseas Service)
  Reservists (Overseas Service)
  29th Brigade
  29th Brigade
  Reserve Officers (Marriage Allowance)
  Reserve Officers (Marriage Allowance)
  Disability Pensions
  Disability Pensions
  Troops, Trieste and Africa
  Troops, Trieste and Africa
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Television Site, Cardiff
  Television Site, Cardiff
  The Broads (National Park)
  The Broads (National Park)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  East Anglian Herring (Sale)
  East Anglian Herring (Sale)
  Trading Accounts
  Trading Accounts
  Home-killed Meat (Freezing)
  Home-killed Meat (Freezing)
  COLONIES (NEWSPRINT SUPPLIES)
  COLONIES (NEWSPRINT SUPPLIES)
  MALAYA (JUDGES)
  MALAYA (JUDGES)
  JAMAICA (BANANA GROWERS)
  JAMAICA (BANANA GROWERS)
BRITISH GUIANA
  Sugar Workers (Housing)
  Sugar Workers (Housing)
  Venn Report (Recommendations)
  Venn Report (Recommendations)
EMPLOYMENT
  Southampton
  Southampton
  West Ham
  West Ham
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (STATISTICS)
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (STATISTICS)
  HOUSING (SUFFOLK)
  HOUSING (SUFFOLK)
  TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES
  TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES
POST OFFICE
  Troops, Korea (Mail)
  Troops, Korea (Mail)
  Wireless Licences
  Wireless Licences
  BROADCASTING, SWANSEA
  BROADCASTING, SWANSEA
  SCOTLAND (HELICOPTER SERVICES)
  SCOTLAND (HELICOPTER SERVICES)
  R.A.F. STATIONS (PIG SWILL)
  R.A.F. STATIONS (PIG SWILL)
  AUSTRIA (TRAVEL PERMITS)
  AUSTRIA (TRAVEL PERMITS)
  CATTLE, WALES (TESTS)
  CATTLE, WALES (TESTS)
FUEL AND POWER
  Coke Supplies
  Coke Supplies
  Gas and Electricity (Economy)
  Gas and Electricity (Economy)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY'S ADVERTISING
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I beg to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is desirable for the British Electricity Authority to carry out extensive advertising until such time as they are able to meet the requirements of their present clients.]
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, owing to the absence of by noble friend, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, in America, I have been asked to reply. Advertisement is, in the normal course, a matter of commercial management for which my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has no direct responsibility, but the noble Earl's question appears to raise a matter affecting the national interest and the policy of His Majesty's Government, and the Minister, therefore, without creating a precedent inconsistent with the present practice, has asked the British Electricity Authority for information about their general advertising policy at the present time.
  I understand first that, being aware of the loss and inconvenience caused to industry and other users of electricity by the present shortage of generating plant, they wish to assure consumers that they are bringing new plant into commission as quickly as they can. Secondly, they have accepted responsibility for the wide-spread national advertising which is required to ensure that householders, office workers and others shall, during the hours of peak demand, help industry by using electricity only when they must. Advertising during the winter is concentrated on this problem of peak demand in order that the frequency and severity of power cuts may be reduced.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, does he not consider that in many of these advertisements such things as new power stations and new capacity are largely advertised while appeals to the public to economise appear in very small print at the bottom? Does the noble Lord not think that on the whole these advertisements tend to increase consumption rather than reduce it? In view of the fact that electricity users cannot buy electricity from any other authority, is it not a misuse of taxpayers' money to go in for extensive advertising?
  LORD SHEPHERD: I cannot accept the noble Lord's description of these advertisements. The advertisements are issued in accordance with the interests of the production and sale of electricity. However, as the noble Lord has complained about them, I will see that his remarks reach the proper quarter. I would point out that in winter the chief difficulty in the supply of electricity arises from the use of electric fires, and during the cold period no money is used on advertising such fittings.
  VISCOUNT SWIMTON: My Lords, I should like to ask two questions arising out of the noble Lord's reply. First of all, if the object the Government have in view, unfortunately, is to get people to consume less electricity so that we may not be subject to these cuts, two of which, each of an hour's duration, happened in the north of England yesterday, why must they waste public money in advertising? I am sure it induces people to use more electricity. Secondly, is not part of our trouble this year due to the fact that in the bad old days the power stations had their spring cleaning, if I may so put it, during the summer months, and that was all over by the time we got into the darker days, whereas now that is not the case and the spring cleaning is carried over into the difficult times?
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it must be well known that the chief demand for the use of electricity occurs at particular times. There are periods, however, when the electricity works can dispose of much more electricity than there is public demand for, and the existing producers of electricity ask that more electricity should be used during these periods. The

  519
  Board are going forward with their new stations and hope that after this year cuts may no longer be necessary, although much will depend on the speed with which the stations are finished.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how much of the tax-payers' money is spent on this advertising every year?
  LORD SHEPHERD: None of the tax-payers' money has been spent in this way. But the accounts of the British Electricity Authority have been published and they contain figures relating to the cost of advertising.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the interesting statement that electricity was burned at certain times and not at others, it would not be better that these advertisements should take the form of saying, "Please put on your fire when you least need it?"

THE PILCHER REPORT
2.41 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: 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 they have now received, and, if so, when they intend to publish, both Parts of the Report of the Committee set up under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Pilcher to inquire into the administration of justice in the Royal Navy.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the First Part of the Report of the Naval Courts-Martial Committee will be published as a Command Paper on Monday next. The Second Part, which was only recently received, is still under consideration. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the thanks of the Board of Admiralty to Mr. Justice Pilcher and his colleagues for the admirable way in which they have dealt with this complicated subject.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount a supplementary question? If my recollection is right, it is considerably over a year since this Committee was appointed
520
—I think it was in February, 1949-and some time ago we had a discussion on this matter. Are we never in the near future to get to a situation in which we can compare this Report with the Lewis Report, and arrive at some conclusion on the recommendations?
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, of course "never" is a long time, and the noble Marquess will see the first Report on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The first half of it.
VISCOUNT HALL: The more important Part, if I may say so.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: What about the other half?
VISCOUNT HALL: That was received about three weeks ago. It takes some time to give consideration to such a Report, and to consult with the Commonwealth countries whose naval disciplinary systems are based upon our own. When these consultations have taken place, then the noble Marquess will be able to see the other half of the Report.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, then may I ask one other question? Will the noble Viscount assure us that there will be sufficient time for examination of the two Parts of the Pilcher Report and for comparison with the Lewis Report before we have the Bill setting up courts of appeal which was forecast in the gracious Speech?
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, J. am hopeful that that will be possible. The noble Marquess will realise that the Second Part of the Pilcher Report deals with summary punishments which are peculiar to the Royal Navy. It will not affect the matters which are intended to be covered by the Bill to be introduced.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I can realise nothing, because I have read neither Report.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
2.43 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: 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 they have any statement to make regarding future policy in respect of pedestrian crossings.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE-TARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of making this statement. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport proposes to revoke the existing regulations relating to pedestrian crossing places and to make new regulations. The most important change will be the omission of any reference in the regulations to the rights and duties of pedestrians and drivers respectively at crossings at road intersections where traffic is controlled by light signals or police officers. At these intersections the control in itself provides substantial protection for pedestrians, and it is pro-posed to deal with such crossings in the Highway Code rather than by regulation. The stud markings at these crossings will be retained.
Experiments carried out during the past two years by the Road Research Laboratory have shown that black and while stripes not only make crossings more conspicuous, but have a good effect on drivers' behaviour and on the use of the crossings by pedestrians. It is proposed therefore that all uncontrolled crossings, on which pedestrians will continue to have precedence over vehicular traffic, should be marked with black and white stripes. Crossings which are controlled by police officers intermittently or during certain hours of the day will also be striped, but pedestriars will not have precedence on such crossings when traffic there is being controlled by police.
My right honourable friend agrees with the view of the Committee on Road Safety that there are too many crossings and that many are in the wrong places. It is his aim to effect a substantial reduction in the number of uncontrolled crossings. We hope that by so reducing the number of crossings and improving the marking of those which are to re-main, and by applying to these crossings new and simplified regulations, road users will be inspired with a new respect for, and confidence in, pedestrian crossings, and in so far as behaviour still falls short of the ideal the police will be able to enforce the law more easily. This proposed new policy cannot be put into effect without the full co-operation of local authorities, and my right honourable friend proposes, therefore, as the next
522
step, to consult their representative organisations. He will at the same time discuss with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary what can be done to see that the new and simplified regulations are effectively enforced on the reduced number of crossings to which they will apply.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I should like to suggest that, in view of the widespread interest in this subject, some opportunity should be afforded for discussion of the matter be-fore the new regulations are issued.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion. If there is a widespread desire by noble Lords, I shall be only too happy to make arrangements for noble Lords to meet my right honourable friend for the purpose of c discussion before the regulations are issued. I feel certain that such a discussion would be most constructive and helpful to us.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, while welcoming the announcement the noble Lord has made on behalf of the Government, I should like to draw attention of the first paragraph of the announcement, he read out, which says:
"… it is proposed to deal with such crossings in the Highway Code rather than by regulation."
Does not that mean that there will still be no law governing these pedestrian crossings, for there will be no penalty on pedestrians for disregarding the provisions of the Highway Code? There will still be one law governing the motorist and no law governing the pedestrian. Further, it is proposed to reduce the number of crossings. Does not the noble Lord agree that one of the principal dangers in our crowded streets to-day is pedestrians who fail to use pedestrian crossings where they are provided? If you reduce the existing number of crossings, will not the position be made much worse? Cannot something be done to try and persuade the pedestrian population to use the crossings where they are provided?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I answer the noble Earl's second question first? There are about 35,000 pedestrian crossings in this country. We hold the view that their number has brought them into contempt, and that it

523
is far better to have a smaller number of crossings properly sited and marked in a conspicuous manner. We feel that this would induce pedestrians to make use of the crossings. With regard to the noble Earl's first question, the Highway Code gains its force from the Road Traffic Act. If the noble Earl will look at the last page of the Highway Code he will see set out the extract from the Act. At the present time a pedestrian has precedence over any traffic on a lighted crossing. That is the anomaly which has raised all the confusion. Now we say that the pedestrian will not have that precedence, and will have to conform to the same rules of the road as the traffic. Whether or not it will be advisable to enforce that, must remain in the hands of the police.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to ask two questions. Can the noble Lord say when it is likely that these new black and white crossings will be first introduced in London? Secondly, as regards the new and simplified regulations, in order that the rights and the legal position of pedestrians should be known as widely as possible, would it be possible to put up for a month, five weeks or six weeks after the crossings are first started, posters giving in simple language a summary of the position the pedestrian holds in respect of crossings?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's first question, I would say that the time when these new crossings make their appearance will be contingent upon the progress my right honourable friend makes in his consultations with local authorities. We hope that they will be expedited. I will convey the noble Lord's second question to my right honourable friend, and perhaps the noble Lord will accept my thanks for what I consider to be a most useful suggestion.
EARL HOWE: May I ask a further question arising from the one the noble Lord. Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has just asked? Would the Minister also see that a summary of these regulations is sent round to schools?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords. I will also convey that suggestion to my right honourable friend. May I again say that I think it is a useful one?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I have a completely open mind on this matter, and I am sure that the whole House wishes to arrive at what is the right solution. There is a great deal of know-ledge in this House on this subject— perhaps more than in another place. After the Minister has had the preliminary consultations which I understand he must have with local authorities and others, can he give an undertaking that there will be a debate in this House before the regulations are promulgated or changes made in the Highway Code? I can assure him that it would be a completely impartial discussion, and one which might help him and his right honourable friend.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, it was with the object of obtaining the widespread knowledge which noble Lords have on this matter that I readily acquiesced in the suggestion of my noble friend to arrange an informal meeting between my right honourable friend and noble Lords. My noble friend the Leader of the House has intimated that the House will have an opportunity of debating this subject so that we may have an informative discussion.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I ask a question of the Minister, arising out of his answer? One of the recommendations of the Alness Report, if I remember correctly, is that the Highway Code should be given the force of law. I understood the noble Lord to say that that had taken place, and I confess that I was rather surprised. Could he say whether that is the position?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, says:
"A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of the highway code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under this Act) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings."
It is a matter of great regret to my right honourable friend that that has not had the support from the Judiciary which we hoped it would.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
2.53 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.

PETROL-DRIVEN AGRICULTURAL MACHINES (GRANTS) SCHEME, 1950
The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of AGRI-CULTURE and FISHERIES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move that this scheme, which has been approved by the Special Orders Committee of the House, be approved.
Moved, That the Petrol-driven Agricultural Machines (Grants) Scheme, 1950, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CALF REARING SCHEME (ENG-LAND, WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND) (VARIATION OF PAY-MENT) ORDER, 1950
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this scheme, which has also beer approved by the Special Orders Committee, be approved.
Moved, That the Calf Rearing Scheme (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (Variation of Payment) Order, 1950, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on his new office. I should also like to ask him whether it is not possible to reduce the amount of red tape used in the administration of this Order. I have a farm and we sometimes apply for a grant under this scheme. We fill in the proper form, and we nearly always get it returned. The first time we wished to rear a bull calf, and under the column headed "sex" we put "B", for bull calf. We thought that would be all right, but it was not. We should have put "S" for steer calf, so we received the form back. Another time we had a batch of calves from Cornwall. We did not know the exact date of their birth, so we put down about April 1, or whatever it was. We were told that we must put the exact date. We said that we did not know it, and we were told that we must put the exact date whether we knew it or not. On another occasion we had twin calves, and we entered them together. Again we had the form back, because we should have entered them separately. This
526
kind of thing is very irritating and it wastes a great deal of time. I hope the noble Earl will be able to do something about it.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for his kind references to myself? It is a great honour and privilege to be in the service of the House. I have taken careful note of what the noble Lord has said, and I will convey his remarks to my right honourable friend the Minister. We certainly do not want any unnecessary formality in the administration of this scheme, and if it can be proved that any of these formalities is redundant and unnecessary, I am quite sure that my right honourable friend will be the first to see that the machinery if altered.
On Question. Mot on agreed to.

CALF REARING SUBSIDY SCHEME (VARIATION OF PAYMENT) (SCOTLAND) ORDER, 1950
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of WORKS (Lord Morrison): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee. be approved.
Moved, That the Calf Rearing Subsidy Scheme (Variation of Payment) (Scotland) Order, 1950, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS BILL
2.57 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The MINISTER of CIVIL AVIATION (Lord Pakenham): My Lords, this is a Bill of formidable and almost repulsive aspect, and perhaps the House will forgive me if I do not dwell upon it, to the general distress, too long. The purpose of the Bill, which is non-contentious, is twofold. It raises the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, to keep step with the increased salaries paid to the permanent heads of other major Government Departments as a result of the recommendations of the Chorley Committee, and it tidies up the

527
provisions for the Comptroller and Auditor-General's pension.
May I take first the question of salaries? The House will recall that the salary of the permanent secretaries was recently increased from £3,500 to £4,500 a year. I take it that those members of your Lordships' House (and there are a good many), who have been Ministers will agree that they are not overpaid—if only for the duties they perform in keeping their Ministers straight. In order to effect the same arrangements for the Comptroller and Auditor-General as for permanent secretaries, the Bill provides that the increased rate of £4,500 shall in fact be payable as from October 1, 1950, but for purposes of pension calculation shall be deemed to have come into force on October 1, 1949. The latter arrangement flows from an undertaking given by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the postponement of the introduction of the Chorley scales should not prejudice the pension or superannuation benefits of retiring officers.
We then come to the second feature of the Bill—the superannuation provisions. Your Lordships will be aware of the constitutional arrangement under which the Comptroller and Auditor-General's salary is designed to secure his independence from the control of the Executive, and the House will agree that whatever form the pension for a Comptroller and Auditor-General takes, that also should be placed outside the control of the Executive. The Bill makes provision accordingly—that is to say. that the various alternative arrangements are still afforded as hitherto but, whichever arrangement is chosen, the pension will be payable directly from the Consolidated Fund, as distinct from voted money. Those, briefly, are the purposes of the Bill. If the House wishes to raise technical points, I will endeavour to answer them or seek information elsewhere. I hope that your Lordships will be ready to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Pakenham.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I observe that this Bill appears to be founded almost entirely upon the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and I take no exception to the increases in salaries which
528
are afforded to these high officers in these times, when we all know that the cost of living is, of course, not rising. In view of the Motion which stands later in the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, may I ask whether the new regulations attaching to these high officers of State afford any facilities for euthanasia when they have attained or passed the superannuation age?
LORD PAKENHAM: Whilst appreciating very readily the points made by the noble Viscount, I can say only that the noble Lord. Lord Chorley (who I presume is here and can speak for himself), seems anxious to take away with one hand what is given with the other.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUPERANNUATION BILL
3.1 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the Second Reading which I now move is again. I think, of a non-controversial Bill and should not occupy a great deal of your Lordships' time. The Bill makes two minor and unrelated adjustments to Civil Service pension arrangements. The first arises from the Chorley recommendations which I mentioned earlier, and deals with the gratuities payable to unestablished civil servants and certain officers of the Supreme Court. The House will perhaps allow me to explain these matters, although if my explanation becomes too technical, your Lordships may inflict on me the remedies to be pro-posed later by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley.
I spoke earlier of the Chancellor's undertaking that the postponement of the Chorley increases following devaluation should not prejudice the pensions or gratuities of retiring officers. Perhaps I should explain that superannuation awards for established civil servants are calculated, for the most part, by reference to the average salary of the last three years' service. For this purpose, under Section 13 of the 1935 Superannuation Act, the salary for any period during which there is in force a temporary abatement of salary may be taken to be

529
unabated salary. Arrangements were therefore made to introduce the new scales formally from October 1, 1949, but to abate them by the amount by which they exceeded the former salaries, for the period of postponement—a very happy device, if I may say so. This period has now been brought to an end with the introduction of the increases as from October 1, 1950. This is the outstanding point. The 1935 Act, however, does not apply to the classes of public servants who are dealt with in this Bill—namely, unestablished civil servants and certain Supreme Court officers. In order to implement the Chancellor's pledge for these officers, Clause 1 of the Bill provides that the gratuities paid to them shall be based on the higher salaries which they would have received if the Chorley rates had actually been received from October 1, 1949. "That is the first main point in the Bill.
The second point in the Bill, which is quite unrelated, concerns the war service of "reconstruction" entrants to the Civil Service. Section 1 of the Superannuation Act, 1946, provided that any person entering the Civil Service during the period beginning September 3, 1939", and ending on a date to be determined by the Treasury, after whole-time service in the Armed Forces, might reckon his Forces service as if it had been unestablished civil service for superannuation purposes. If I may put that more simply, the intention was to give all reconstruction entrants to the Civil Service from the Forces equal rights with those who had spent the war years in temporary Government service. The date to be fixed by the Treasury to terminate this period was laid down by statutory instrument as June 30, 1950, which became, in effect, the end of the war period for the purposes of the 1946 Act, Section 1. If this had not been done, if there had been no date of this kind, the post-war National Service man who subsequently came into the Civil Service would have been able to claim the special benefits provided by the 1946 Act for the war Service man. The National Service man would have reaped all the advantages designed for the war Service man, which was not, I think, intended by any-body. June 30, 1950, was chosen as the time when these post-war National Service men began to come out of the Forces in appreciable numbers.
530
Some reconstruction competitions for the Civil Service are still proceeding, however, and it is therefore necessary to safe-guard the interests of the small group of reconstruction entrants after June 30, 1950, who are entitled by virtue of their war service to the benefits of the 1946 Act. The second clause of the Bill gives such entrants the same benefits as those reconstruction candidates who entered before the end of June, 1950. Only a very small number of people are affected, but this House has always been ready to do justice to the few, as to the many, and I therefore hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE BILL
3.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, knowing your Lordships' approach to Colonial questions, and particularly to Colonial development, there should be no opposition to the passing of this Bill, which was welcomed and passed through all stages in another place without any difficulty. Assistance for Colonial development has now completely changed from what it was previous to the First World War, for at that time very few Colonies had the good fortune to possess substantial mineral wealth, and in comparatively few were there manufacturing industries. The majority were almost wholly dependent on the limited resources derived from agriculture, the value of which varied widely from year to year as conditions fluctuated in the world market. The result, of course, was that Colonial revenues provided an unreliable basis for a policy of steady progress and development. In many Colonies the position was aggravated by heavy burdens of expenditure and indebtedness. Many were unable to finance out of their own resources any development, research or survey work, or any schemes of major capital enterprise, or the expansion of administration or technical staffs which were necessary for their full development. Nor were they able to afford an adequate standard of health and general social services.

531
His Majesty's Government began to realise this after the First World War, and in 1929 an Act was passed setting up the first Colonial Development Fund for financing, by grant or loan, various schemes for economic development in the Colonies. This was a notable step forward, but the progress made in the next decade was in no way sufficient to meet the needs of the Colonial Empire. Your Lordships will appreciate the inadequacy of our contribution to the Colonies during this period when I say that the Colonial Governments received from the United Kingdom Exchequer only some £17,000,000, £12,000,000 mainly to overcome their annual deficits, and an additional £5,000,000 from the Colonial Development Fund of 1929, while commitments for future schemes amounted to £1,600,000.
In 1940 the Coalition Government took a bolder step forward, when they passed the existing Colonial Development and Welfare Act. Here, may I pay tribute to the memory of the late Lord Lloyd, who was Colonial Secretary at that time and who, with myself, piloted the Act through Parliament? This Act provided that money, amounting to £55,000,000 spread over ten years, should be available not only for schemes involving capital expenditure necessary for Colonial development in the wider sense, but also for helping to meet re-current expenditure in the Colonies and for certain services such as agriculture, education, health and housing. Under this Act the amount which would be spent a year was raised from £1,000,000 to £5,500,000, but this limit was never reached in any of the six years of its operation; in fact the total amount spent during those six years was about £10,000,000.
The 1945 Act marked yet another important change—and may I say here how much we must all regret the continued illness of Mr. Oliver Stanley, who played such an important part in piloting that legislation through another place. Until 1945, a fixed amount could be spent each year and, as is the case with the Votes of Government Departments in this country, nothing which remained unspent could be carried over to the next year. In 1945 this was all changed, and the sum of £120,000,000 was made available for
532
the next ten years, from April 1, 1946, to March 31, 1956. This made possible for the first time the full planning of schemes over the ten-year period.
The Bill which I now commend to your Lordships does not extend the ten-year period, but raises the total which may be spent from £120,000,000 to £140,000,000. It has been quite clear for some time that the £120,000,000 under the 1945 Act would be insufficient to meet the essential requirements of Colonial development up to March, 1956. We made a slow start, but this was inevitable, because of the shortage of technicians, skilled man-power and materials following the war, and also because development plans of the scope envisaged under the new Act took time to work out and get going. The expenditure is now rapidly accelerating, and it has become clear that £120,000,000 is not sufficient to carry us on until 1956. In 1946–47 only £3,500,000 was spent but this amount was nearly doubled in 1948–49, doubled again to £13,000,000 in 1949–50, and is estimated for the present year to amount to no less a sum than £18,000,000. Up to the end of the last financial year, £29,000,000 had been spent and this will have been raised to nearly £50,000,000 by the end of the current financial year. This means that by March 31, 1951, when the 1945 Act will have run half its course, somewhat less than half the total provision will have been spent, but the tempo is now increasing so rapidly that there is every reason to sup-pose that the remainder already fully committed will be absorbed by 1956. To allow for this increased rate of expenditure in the second five years of the Act we also propose in this Bill to increase the limit which may be spent in any one year from £20,000,000 to £25,000,000.
Of the original £120,000,000, £85,500,000 was allocated to the individual Colonial Governments. Of the remaining £34,500,000, £23,500,000 was allocated to various services, such as research and surveys which could best be coordinated or directed from the centre. Here again, all the available funds are now being committed to the carrying out of development already planned. It is interesting here to note that the amount spent on research has increased from less than £100,000 in 1945–46 to about £2,000,000 this current year, and some 400 research schemes have been made since 1940. These schemes deal with every

533
branch of physical, economic, agricultural and scientific research, while large sums have been spent upon surveys. There is no doubt of the advantages which this work brings to all the Colonies. The remaining £1,000,000 of the £120,000,000 was kept as a general reserve, and this also is almost all committed. Instead of our allocating to the individual Colonies the greater part of the further £20,000,000 for which we are asking in this Bill, this sum will be retained also in reserve, ready for allocation to those schemes we regard as most desirable. We think this plan is best, in view of the relatively small sum and large area over which to spend it.
Reference to the area brings me to Clause 2 of the Bill. This clause pro-vides for the repeal of that part of the 1940 Act which limits the benefits of the Act to Colonies "not possessing responsible government." This clause came in for a considerable amount of comment during the debates in another place. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the whole process of constitutional advance in the Colonial territories is a gradual, though continuous, movement towards self-government. In that process it is difficult in practice to decide at what particular stage an individual Colony may be said to have reached responsible government so far as this Act is concerned. It might happen that in a certain Colony.
constitutional changes have brought about a state of responsible government for the purposes of the Act, and the Secretary of State might therefore be prevented from continuing assistance to development schemes already under way and of vital importance to the development of that particular Colony.
We had this sort of difficulty three years ago in connection with Malta. We were then advised that it was essential to include a clause in the Malta Reconstruction Act of 1947 to enable us to continue to give assistance to Malta under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, as it was held that constitutional changes in Malta would result in its having a "responsible Government" and would" therefore place the Island outside the scope of the Act. There is no question of extending the scope of the Act; we are merely looking to the future of those Colonies who are already receiving Colonial Development and Welfare
534
assistance. Moreover, I can assure the House that if this clause is passed the accountability of the Secretary of State to Parliament for his operations under the Act will remain unaltered.
Finally. I know your Lordships will wish to have some idea of what results we are getting from this vast expenditure of money. So far, ten-year development plans have been approved for the Colonies, involving a total figure of nearly £195,000,000. Of this about one third, £65,000,000, is to be provided from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds. The rest, some £130,000,000, is to be found by the Colonies from local resources and from loans. Thus your Lordships will see that the Colonies' own contribution towards their development plans is in a ratio of about two to one of that provided by the United Kingdom. Of this vast sum it is also interesting to note the general breakdown. There is to be spent on development and social services 47.2 per cent.; on economic development 23.5 per cent.; on communications 19.4 per cent., and the remaining 9.9 per cent. on development of miscellaneous services.
It can be said that in the last twenty years the aim of all past Governments in Colonial policy has been to advance the interests of the inhabitants of the territories. As a result of their efforts during that period much has been accomplished, but there is room for further active development of the natural resources of the various territories so as to provide their people with greatly improved standards of life. Some of the Colonies can make, and have made, much progress in strengthening their economic position without recourse to outside help. They are improving as time goes on, and the social services which minister
to the well-being of the people as a whole are making further progress. It should be appreciated by the Colonies themselves that this nation is making a great monetary contribution which in future we may not be in a position to continue on the same scale, and we should look to, and expect, all the assistance we can obtain from the Colonial peoples, so that this large expenditure of £140,000,000 in ten years can be used on schemes that will bring lasting benefit to the peoples of the Colonial Empire, and there will be brighter prospects for them

535
and those who follow them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Hall.)
3.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am sure that the House will give an easy passage to this Bill which has been moved in such an agreeable and informative speech by the First Lord of the Admiralty; and equally I am sure that on all sides of the House we appreciate and would wish to endorse the tribute the noble Viscount paid to Lord Lloyd, in whose work he himself had a large share, and also to Mr. Oliver Stanley, who so well carried on that work. It is an agreeable thing that in 1940, in the darkest days of the war, the National Government set this great enterprise on foot. It is a remarkable proof of the confidence we had then, as we have now, in ourselves and in our Colonial Empire. Nor shall I cavil at the clause which repeals the rather odd section about territories which enjoy responsible government. It is never very easy to try to give verbal definitions about a varied and changing organism like the British Empire, but I am sure we all know what is meant. Although it is not easy to define the clause, what I think it means is that if there is a territory where a Colonial Minister—by that I mean a Minister in the Colony, whether he be European, African or West Indian—has responsibility for a particular department, that should be no bar to the Colony receiving in respect of a service for which such a Minister is responsible a grant in aid out of the Colonial Development fund. I think that is certainly right. I understand why the limitation was put in, and probably if we had thought more about it in detail at the time it would have appeared inconsistent with the broad purpose which we have in hand—namely, expansion for the Colonies which would also expand in their individual responsibilities.
I do not think there is any conflict among us about the retention by Parliament of its responsibilities for a grant to what is called a "responsible Government." After all, the Secretary of State decides on and is responsible for commending to Parliament any particular scheme which it is proposed to help out of this Fund. I believe there have been
536
cases in the past (I am glad to say not many) where the Fund has been used for a general grant in aid of a budget deficit in a Colony. The noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong about that. There may have been good reasons for doing that in one or two cases, but the Act was certainly not intended for purposes of that sort, and I hope they will be avoided in future. The Act was intended to further and assist, in partnership with the Colonies, schemes which would be for the benefit, expansion and development of the Colonies. Therefore, the Secretary of State remains responsible and has to justify to Parliament the expenditure of the money which the British Parliament grants. Nor do I think it is difficult to secure with what is called a responsible Government or a responsible Minister that the scheme for which the grant is given will in fact be carried out. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred I believe it always will be. But should money paid out for a scheme not be applied to that scheme but to some other purpose—a most improbable contingency —then it would be perfectly simple to refrain from paying further instalments. I see no difficulty in that regard.
I should like to make one other suggestion—namely, that when we find this money, we should see not only that it is spent in accordance with the scheme, but that our generous contributions are used to increase local efficiency. I think that is worthy of our attention. After all, when, in this country, a grant in aid is given by Parliament to any business—I have been responsible for a great many proposals of this kind myself—Parliament has always ensured not only that the money will be spent in conformity with the scheme but that the business which is assisted shall be efficiently managed. We have done that in some cases by putting Government directors on boards, and have taken steps generally to see that the managements will be efficient. I well remember one instance in which I invited a whole board of directors to resign, and I am glad to say that they accepted my invitation. One of them was re-appointed. He was the only one we required to continue, and he did so with an extremely good board of directors, greatly to the benefit of the business and of the taxpayer. Equally, when a bank or a finance corporation come in to assist to finance

537
an ordinary business, the first thing they do is to make sure that the business is going to be efficiently managed.
We had much better speak frankly about these Colonial questions; I do not believe in not having complete frankness between partners. There are in the Colonies admirable cases of undertakings which, whether run by the British Ministers or British civil servants or by Africans or West Indians, have been excellent. On the other hand, there have been some fairly bad ones. I have come across one in particular—the noble Viscount will be well acquainted with it. I have not seen the full document but only an extract. It is a report on the Nigerian Railways and was published, only this month, I think, by a Mr. Pallant who, as I understand, is a high-ranking officer in British Railways or the British Transport Commission. It gives a deplorable picture of the inefficiency of the Nigerian Railways to-day, of the delays and depreciation and of the lack of discipline and good work. I was all the more shocked to read that report when I recollected what an admirable organisation that railway was at the time I was out there during the war. As a matter of fact, I took the same precaution: I got one of the ablest men in the English railway administration, who was then in the Army on transport work, and asked him to lock at both the Gold Coast Rail-way and the Nigerian Railway. His report on the Nigerian Railway was to the effect that it could not be better; he could not make any recommendations to improve it. I regret to have to add that he could not say the same thing about the Gold Coast Railway, which we had to take steps to improve. Therefore, it did shock me to see coming from a completely impartial quarter a report showing such serious deterioration in that vital transport link. I cite that as an example. I think it would be right in principle and in practice that, when Parliament is giving the money, we should insist on efficient management. I am sure that if this is insisted on from the start, the condition will be accepted in the Colonies. I am also sure that whether the man responsible for administration be an Englishman or an African he will be only too glad to have at his back that lever to secure the necessary reforms and improvements—that the grant of help must be conditioned by efficiency.
538
I have only one further thing to say. I suggest that special consideration should be given to schemes which will benefit more than one Colony. I imagine that there may be great scope for this in the West Indies. Take, for instance, British Guiana. If you came development to be carried out in British Guiana you are probably not only benefiting British Guiana but making it possible to get immigration into British Guiana from the very densely populated islands of the West Indies, such as Jamaica. Incidentally, if you can give a grant in aid out of this fund, which is of such high standing and repute, you may be doing something to make federation a more practical reality in the West Indies. We all want to see it become a practical reality. Therefore I would express the hope that preference will be given to those schemes which can benefit more than one Colony. Having said that—and I hope it is constructive—I give the Bill a very warm welcome.
3.36 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to support this Bill I should like to be allowed first to add my tribute to those which have already been paid to the late Lord Lloyd and Mr. Oliver Stanley. I had the privilege of working under both of them, and I was in a particular position to appreciate how well merited were the tributes that we have heard this afternoon. In view of the general unanimity of support for the principles of the Bill it is not necessary for me to detain your Lordships by going over ground that has already been so well covered. But there are one or two principles to which I should like briefly to call attention, because I feel that at times these issues are over-simplified; there is a tendency to think that the mere granting of large sums of money will effect what cannot be effected by money alone. In the past, the emphasis of these development and welfare expenditures has been very definitely on welfare. I should be the last to decry either the need for or the value of social services, but I suggest that it is necessary to pre-serve an overall view, and to keep all these things in their right perspective.
The Secretary of State said in another place last week:
"I do not want a superstructure of social services, which will at some time collapse because the economic foundations under them arc not sound."

539
I should like to support and slightly amplify what the Secretary of State said. He stated further, when dealing with the same question (he was deploring the fact that so many of the citizens of these Colonies should be educated in England as lawyers):
"I should like more of them to want to become engineers, scientist technicians, and artisans."
That again, in my opinion, strikes one of the vital points in this connection. He also said something else which I should like to stress. He said that it was very desirable that the people of the Colonies should feel that they had been taken into complete partnership in all of these schemes. Then he further said:
"However good our plans may be, we shall fail unless as these plans develop we increasingly associate with them the people in the Colonial territories …"
That again, I think, is a point which is somewhat apt to be overlooked in our haste to get on with various schemes.
If I may, I would refer for a moment, before passing to those points, to what the noble Viscount has just said about a scheme which would benefit several Colonies at the same time. He quoted the West Indies as an excellent area for that experiment. Just as roads and railways and ports are urgently needed in Africa, a counterpart to that is the urgent need in the Caribbean of a British shipping service. No greater contribution could be made to strengthening our position and our reputation in the West Indies than urgent and early consideration of such a service. Apart from federation, the whole economic development of the West Indies depends largely on the institution of services which are at present almost non-existent, and the field appears likely to be taken by the shipping services of foreign Powers. However friendly these Powers may be at the moment or are likely to be in the future, I should have thought the lesson in the last war should be remembered, if only for our own interests. In the last war the Royal Navy said that but for the British Mercantile Marine we should have lost the war.
It is obvious, I suppose, though we should always keep it before our eyes, that ultimately these schemes must be self-supporting, by which is meant that new wealth must be created in the
540
Colonies, so that in the future they may be in a position to support the schemes. I gathered from the noble Viscount who moved this Second Reading that that future might be earlier than we wish. I think it is generally realised to-day that all these schemes require a proper economic basis which will support the aspirations for wider educational facilities and greater social services, and that unless political development is to be a mere sham the economic foundation must be soundly laid. The food and health of the people are bound up with the possibilities of real advance. The people must be qualified not only to talk the political jargon of the day but also to take the lead and manage their own agriculture, veterinary, medical and other services, and the business of their own countries. As the noble Viscount indicated, it is for such purposes that much of our funds should be spent, in trying to educate and bringing these people on to that position.
The dilemma in which we find ourselves to-day, however, is that we have encouraged roseate visions of independence without regard to the limits of speed which must at all times qualify educational, social and economic progress, which are to-day still further restricted by shortages of trained personnel and materials. In our anxious effort to produce these development plans we have had to produce them with European officers, with the result that a feeling of detachment towards them has been engendered in the people of these countries, who think of them as if they are not their schemes but ours. That is a serious tendency, because unless and until the people of the Colonies regard them as their very own these schemes will not reflect their purpose and cannot be successful.
The problem of bringing these people on is intractable, or close to being so, at the moment, because of the emphasis that has been placed on speed, and be-cause we are dealing not with one problem but with the mass of interlocked problems involved in the task of making our dependent peoples jump the centuries which it took for ourselves to reach our present position. If speed is to be the essence of this development, then, unless a certain measure of authoritarian method is permitted, I say that the task is impossible; and we may as well admit it. before failure ends in disaster. But if

541
speed is not to be the overriding consideration, if wisdom and common sense are to be allowed to control enthusiasm, and if we are determined not to abdicate entirely our position of senior partner and controlling trustee, then the difficult task assumes manageabls proportions. Even so, we are in the difficult position of encouraging independence while still fulfilling the rôle of tutelary Power. We have so much still to teach the people of the Colonies. Most of their vocal leaders speak of democracy without appreciating its practice. They think of it as a means to power, whereas it should be looked on as a means to opportunity. The chief danger is that there may be too much high thinking and loose talking about political independence, before the economic foundations had been properly laid. After all, the roof is not the first consideration, even in a political house. Anyone who has had practical experience of administration in the Colonial Empire knows how conservative ignorance is in agriculture, food, hygiene and all matters which affect the daily life of the people.
I have one final brief remark to make: that is about the worship which seems now to be accorded to the economist— I do not refer to the paper so much as to the persons so named. It has become customary for some to regard the economist as a kind of witch doctor, to whom one appeals for a ritual blessing for every scheme and plan which may be set afoot. We have been encouraged to have an exaggerated belief in the economist's power to regulate the human societies in which we live and to mould their own affairs and their environment. I suggest that there has been a serious exaggeration of his power to affect all these vast changes in the whole of the social system of other peoples, or even of our own people, in the brief time which we have been encouraged to envisage. There has been, too, an almost pathological emphasis placed on the size of projects. When this Bill was being considered in another place the other day, we heard demands that far bigger sums of money should be spent. It would be very difficult to spend usefully these vast sums of money, and it does not follow that because the task we set ourselves is a big one we are any the more able to carry it out.
542
When people say, "Develop Africa"— or whatever it may be—what does that mean? It means disintegrating the whole social system of the country with which we are dealing, and that is an extremely precarious thing to do, unless we put something in its place. We cannot disintegrate a society and put something in its place at speed. It has to be done slowly, with infinite thought and tact, and by the method of trial and error which is necessitated by the changing circumstances of the day. These people have been divorced from the whole economic system which is the one we know in Western economy to-day. It is true that they are possessed of a sort of psychological discontent; that they wish to have, in a vague way, all the benefits which have come to Western society. But should we not carefully educate them to understand that that means a change in the whole of their system of life? After all, what is meant by "welfare of the Colonial people?" Whose is the valuation of welfare—ours or theirs? I do not think there arc many of the Colonial peoples who realise how fundamental is the difference between our points of view. They have lived in a society in which they were secure in the dictates of the past. It is true that part of that security was given to them by the protection of the British Government, or
whichever of the tutelary metropolitan Powers it happened to be concerned. Whatever may be the future, with the present thought of the world before these Colonies, that cannot be. No longer can they hope to repose under the security of the British Empire in that sense, because this idea of thought and progress has said that they are to move rapidly towards self-government.
I suggest that serious steps should be taken, partly to slow up the pace of the disintegration which must accompany re-building and partly to educate these people into appreciating what it is that they are demanding, and what responsibilities come from demanding to be a member of the Western economic system, which is, in effect, what is happening. In relation to this Bill, and to similar Bills, I also suggest that our major task in Africa, or wherever it may be, is not to bribe backward people by means of offers of material benefits. It is surely to convince them that, in the future of this world, neither sovereign Powers nor

543
Colonies can stand alone; that there is a harmonisation of our mutual interests in which we both need each other; that the best of futures for them would lie in partnership with us; and that, just as we need them, so they need us. In conclusion, I do urge that it is not possible to bulldoze a people into progress. Just as you cause soil erosion if you proceed too rapidly with bulldozing the bush, so if you try to bulldoze a people and destroy their customs and social habits you cause moral erosion. I suggest that the money to be spent should be spent with the objects which I have mentioned clearly and firmly in view.
3.54 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I wish to speak for a few minutes on the human side of this problem. I want to pay tribute, first of all, to the line of Colonial Secretaries—and the present First Lord is one of them—who have made a great contribution to the enlightened administration of our Colonial Empire, and especially for their making the people at home realise that it is a trusteeship that the British people have undertaken, and not mere domination of the Colonial people. I wish to support this Second Reading; but when the First Lord tells us that £140,000,000 is to be spent in the course of ten years, I should like to emphasise that there should be stricter accountancy in the spending of that money. I observe that Mr. Vernon Bartlett, a journalist of repute, had a series of articles in the News Chronicle in which he mentioned that the Colonial Office had awarded 200 scholarships to West Africans to come over here to study law and political economy, and that only one scholarship had been awarded for the study of agriculture in this country. Soil erosion has been mentioned more than once in the debates on the Colonies, and I should have thought that the Colonial Office would pay more attention to agriculture instead of trying to rear a horde of briefless barristers. Those of your Lordships who served in the Army would say that the biggest nuisance was the barrack-room lawyer. I suggest that more of the money should be spent in trying to turn some of these people into farmers.
I should also like to say, in no controversial spirit, that I trust there will be
544
a quick settlement as to where the responsibility lies for the development of the Kongwa area—the nuts area—of which great play has been made in previous debates. I suggest that it should not be the responsibility of the Ministry of Food. That Ministry should exist to bring home the bacon from Denmark and perhaps some beef from the Argentine— but that is by the way. I trust that we shall have a pronouncement from His Majesty's Government that schemes like the Kongwa scheme will be vested in the Colonial Office. I should be more content if Lord Reith had something to do with it in his new department. With regard to the Kongwa area, I am sorry that the noble Viscount. Lord Swinton, mentioned in our last debate that we had wasted a great deal of money. In passing, he said that every gallon of water brought for drinking in the Kongwa area cost 6½d. Water is cheap at any price if you are almost dying from thirst. The reason I am speaking of this matter is because I have friends in that area. One is a Danish Bishop, who possessed a "Tin Lizzie" and went every day to bring water to his own community, no matter whether they were Christians or Moslems; and that water was cheap, even though it cost 2s. a gallon. I wish to pay tribute to the missionaries in that area. That is the line which I wish to emphasise.
It has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, not merely that we have to emphasise economy, but that these people are human entities. This Bishop wrote and said that the wages of the people in his community were paid on a Saturday, and that the wet canteen was open on that day. The result was that many of his congregation were unfit to take their part in worship on Sunday. I suggest that that is a serious point. I would rather they were paid their wages on a Sunday afternoon when the canteen is closed, and then there would be little of the absenteeism which takes place when the men are soaked in bad beer. I put the emphasis on the word "bad," because I think your Lordships will agree with me that some beer is not bad.
I wish now to turn to another field which has been mentioned, and that is the West Indies. I have friends in every one of those islands, and I am not going to

545
apologise for them because they are called missionaries. More and more we are realising that these men, for an almost starvation salary of £250 a year, have a most difficult task, especially in trying to bring hope, comfort and a real foundation of belief to the coloured population. Coloured people form 95 per cent. of their congregations and arc in a very poor state. I, for one, admired the courage of the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Arthur Creech Jones, when he appointed a member of your Lordships' House as Governor of the Leeward Islands. I know from the letters I have received that he became a hero, even to his kitchen maid. If any of your Lordships has a valet in these days, I am sure he is a hero to his valet. The finest epitaph given to that
Governor of the Leeward Islands was given to him spontaneously by the children, because they loved him. I for one, rejoiced when he "put the cat in the dovecotes" of Downing Street by doing some unorthodox things.
We are going to spend a great deal of money. I wish to bring to the notice of the Colonial Office—because I cannot expect a reply from the First Lord this afternoon—that the worst blizzard in living memory has taken place in Antigua. Very few of the houses are left standing, and schools have been destroyed. Some of the churches have also been destroyed, and the coloured people, with their slender means, have no chance of re-building. I ask the Colonial Office to make a grant of £4,000 in materials, which is better than money. That sum, spent now in rebuilding schools, which these people, with proper supervision, will build for themselves, will be put to good use. The schools will be used not only on six days a week, but also on the seventh, for the worship of God and for the singing of calypso tunes—for which they can be excused. What I want in the West Indies is a fellowship which transcends the colour bar. I remember a cricket match in Trinidad. The manager of the firm, the son of a missionary, was batting against a tiny little fellow—5 ft. 2 ins., I think he was—who "spoofed" him out. That was Rhamadin, and the manager said: "That fellow must come to England." I wish we could have him at Brisbane on Friday. He was one of the most honoured guests of this country only a few months ago. I simply mention
546
that to show that human relationship can do a great deal towards building a better and proper understanding.
So far as I understand it, Parliament has given home rule to Jamaica. The trouble with Jamaica is that they have not got over their growing pains and, as one of the principal Ministers in the Jamaican Government said the other day, it is not money they require. They require more than money. They need to build on a surer foundation than money.
I intervened in this debate although I have never been to Africa or the West Indies, but ever since I was a boy I have been soaked in the subject by listening to people coming from those places. This great country of outs has received an equally great trusteeship, and we need not apologise for what we have done in the past. Wherever the lectures may come from, whether from the United Nations or even from the Americans, we have the "know-how" by tradition and honourable service, and by the splendid army of civil servants we have sent to the Colonies—of whom the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, is not one of the least. I say that most sincerely, and I have no reason to apologise one scrap for it, though I regret that he should be sitting where he is sitting now. I do not like the company he keeps. I am sorry I have been tempted from the paths of strict debating rectitude. I rose simply to ask for your Lordships' indulgence to speak for a few minutes in welcoming this Bill. This money must not be spent as if it were manna from heaven, and there must be stricter accountability to Parliament. With those few remarks, I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
4.8 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I remember all too bitterly my early days as Under-Secretary at the Colonial Office nearly thirty years ago, and the bitter experience of the grant-in-aid Colonies and Dependencies. In fact, I was early warned that the one hope for any of our Dependencies was not to get under Treasury control, because the Treasury maxim, once the grant-in-aid had to be given to keep that Colony going, was always reminiscent of that most strange and baffling Parable of the Talents in the New Testament, which ends with these words:
"For unto every one that hath shall be given."

547
A prosperous Colony like Uganda had money thrown at it, but if it was Somali-land or Nyasaland it was a case of
"but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."
That was the Treasury attitude, particularly when it was on the question of the really growing services which would enable the Dependency to pay. They would never cut down on the police, or the administration or, above all, the tax collectors, but they slaughtered the agricultural departments, absolutely destroyed the forestry departments, and did the least they could for communications.
That was the whole tradition of the British Treasury in relation to Colonies when I was first associated with Colonial administration, and of course it was a hopeless position. The gradual getting over that awful tradition has been a long, slow process, culminating in the series of Acts of which this is an amending Bill to-day, and I welcome it generally. I should, however, have liked to hear from the noble Viscount the First Lord of the Admiralty that the expenditure under the Bill, and the control of the agencies working under the Bill, were to be kept within the framework of the Colonial Governments and the Colonial Office. I am quite frankly horrified, the more I hear of the whole story of the famous groundnuts. The Director of Agriculture, who knew the country, and the people there were completely ignored. The great tradition of Sir Donald Cameron (who after-wards went on to Nigeria) in safeguarding native
land was ruthlessly swept away, and vast areas which had been declared to be native land were taken over by the Central Government. The ordinary company, the ordinary settler, was excluded. This belief that the Central Government can do no wrong is dictatorship. I think the rules as to when you can alienate native land to the State ought to be just as carefully and just as amply safeguarded in carrying out these schemes as if they had been undertaken by a company or
private enterprise. It is a terrible story, on that side alone. People with practically no experience, and most of them with none at all, were "carted out" to Africa, and it really is a shocking story.
After all, look at what has been successful in Colonial development. When I was a boy there was no cocoa growing
548
in the Gold Coast, yet to-day the Gold Coast is the largest exporter of cocoa of any country in the world. When I was a boy the first few bales of cotton were grown in Uganda, and that industry has grown up gradually. There is a great danger, particularly in Africa and even in the West Indies, of wishing to grow too large too quickly. When you have proved your land, your climatic conditions, the adaptability of your people and their willingness and ability to co-operate in making the scheme a success, then you can expand at accelerating rates. But some of the schemes under the Colonial Development Corporation make me apprehensive that they want to grow too large too quickly. It is much better to prove your case, because you have to prove it not merely to us, to Parliament, but you have to prove it to the local in-habitants if you are to get their full co-operation. Therefore I say that I dread these outside bodies. My hope is that the Overseas Food Corporation may be wound up lock, stock and barrel, at the earliest possible moment, and that we may have the proper operation of this Bill that we are considering this after-noon in co-operation with, and through the agency of, the Colonial Services.
I have the highest regard for our Colonial Services, not merely for the Governors, and Colonial Secretaries, and people of that sort, but for the increasing efficiency and knowledge of our other services, such as the agricultural service, the forestry service, and the geological service, which have been built up in recent years. In their individual Colonies, or in East Africa or West Africa as a whole, they now form a team of experienced men who are far better advisers than any number of people brought in from outside on a Cook's tour to tell you how to do this, that and the other, and, above all, who are not led up the garden path, as Mr. Strachey was, in what he was told about the land in the Southern part of Tanganyika. We know that these people are now experienced responsible people, and in most of the Colonial Governments there is a good teamwork between the administrator and the technical heads of his departments, and they see the matter in proportion. It is necessary in all these cases that the Director of Education should be told: "We want so many of such-and-such a standard, and in five or six years' time

549
we shall want so many people with this speciality." Can you do that in your schools? If not where are we going to get them? I entirely agree with those who say that one of the troubles to-day is that by far the largest number of Africans who come for a university education in this country obtain a legal qualification. The result is that those who are very good no doubt earn large incomes as barristers, but those who fall by the wayside drift into journalism as briefless barristers, while these countries continue to be hungry for engineers and technicians of every kind. The bias in Colonial education should undoubtedly be in that direction.
One outstanding example has been mentioned this afternoon of where these schemes have to consider not only one Colony but the relations of Colonies with one another. In the West Indies the political problem and the economic problem as a whole is the problem of shipping. It is no use our developing these places if there are not the ships to take the stuff away. If there is not intercommunication there cannot be co-operation and unity. The tragedy to-day is that we are dependent on dollar-standard American ship-ping, or on the French or the Dutch. There is practically no British shipping line operating in the inter-island traffic in the West Indies. That is a problem to which only the Colonial Office and Minis-try of Transport in this country can find a solution. By far the biggest problem of the West Indies is the problem of sea communication.
Another thing of which I am convinced is that when it comes to introducing new cultures and new developments in native territories, particularly in Africa, it is necessary to provide object lessons. When you provide those object lessons you want to keep down the European staff and the European control to the minimum. I do not think I have ever been more struck by the success of an experiment than I was this year in Southern Rhodesia. I came to a place where there was one white agricultural officer—admittedly a man with a university training. He was the only white man in the place. There was a pleasant perennial stream coming down the mountain-side and flowing over a flat piece of land across the road, and the native agricultural authorities of Southern Rhodesia said: "Up and down this road
550
thousands of natives come, going back-wards and forwards. It is the main road of communication." They have used that stream to develop a hundred-acre perennial irrigation model scheme. Each of the native holders—and they were drawn from different places; they were men who had shown that they knew something about agriculture—had two acres. It was perennial water and in the tropics, and provided that the men managed their lands and went in for effective rotation of crops, there was a continual production of wealth.
The rule was that each man had to grow and harvest on every yard of his plot two crops a year. One must be leguminous; the other could be anything else. The scheme was a brilliant success, and everybody is asking for an extension of this idea. The natives are asking be-cause they have seen its success, and from the very first an ever-increasing responsibility was thrown on to the emergent bodies. That was one of the most successful experiments in intensive production. When I was given the figure of what the out-turn of that hundred acres was per annum, it was simply staggering. Everyone said: "The great thing is that it is a small scheme; and it will grow, and others like it will grow elsewhere." It is a great mistake to think that you will develop Africa and the native in Africa if you start too large. That is all-important.
Once you have the impetus, and the confidence of the people and their understanding that they can do it, there is no race in the world so ready to co-operate and so good to work with as the African Negro. I have the greatest affection and regard for many individuals among them whom I have known for many years. If you try to impose something from outside, without teaching them in that way that they can do the work, they get the idea "We are the under-dog and you are the boss," and it is not the same thing. It is essential to get their co-operation. Therefore I implore the Colonial Secretary and everybody connected with this scheme: Do not think, because you can show and trumpet to the world "We have spent so many thousands of pounds here, and so many thousands of pounds there," that that is achievement. The real achievement can be measured only in

551
terms of human progress, and in the output of human food and raw materials in a still vastly under-developed Continent and in the islands throughout the seven seas. I bless this Bill, but I do hope that these principles—and I re-echo a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said—will guide those who will be responsible for administering this Measure when it comes into force.
4.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate, and none of the speeches has been more interesting than that which has just been delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. So far as this Bill is concerned, there is so much common agreement between us that I am not going to take up much of your Lordships' time, particularly in view of the important debate which is to follow. I shall, of course, draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary to the main points, which have mostly been constructive, and I am sure that he will give all the attention he can to those points. There are, however, one or two matters with which I should like to deal. First, there was a reference by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to money from this Fund being devoted to grants-in-aid. None of it can be devoted to grants-in-aid. It must be used solely for the purposes which are laid down in the Act. Then the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, referred to the question of assistance being given not to individual Colonies but to groups of Colonies. As both noble Lords will know, there was a central fund. Almost all the research and the surveys were paid for out of that central fund and the research, in particular, which was carried out benefited quite a number of the Colonies in the West Indies, in West Africa and in East Africa.
I entirely agree with what has been said about training and education. I would infinitely prefer more technicians and fewer lawyers, not only in Africa but elsewhere. But we cannot help ourselves, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, had no end of difficulty, particularly when he was in Nigeria, in selecting the subjects that students coming to this country for education should take up. There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. The noble Lord,
552
Lord Calverley, asked that the Colonial Office should make a grant of £4,000 to assist the Island of Antigua.
LORD CALVERLEY: In addition to what you have done.
VISCOUNT HALL: Of course, His Majesty's Government have already given £50,000 in connection with this matter.
LORD CALVERLEY: I know. I am very grateful.
VISCOUNT HALL: I have no doubt that the door is not closed to any appeal which might be made. Again may I say that, if I had to deal with all the points which have been raised, particularly in regard to the ground-nuts scheme, I am afraid I should take up so much time that the next important matter could not be debated to-day? All I can say is that I thank your Lordships very much for the reception which you have given to this Bill. I take note of all the remarks which have been made in connection with it and I will draw the attention of the Colonial Secretary to those points with which I have not dealt.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
4.29 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA
4.30 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY rose to call attention to the need for legalising voluntary euthanasia; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in 1936, the late Lord Ponsonby of Shulebrede introduced the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Bill into your Lordships' House and, after an interesting discussion, a Second Reading was refused. Since that time a good deal of water has flowed under the bridges and a considerable volume of opinion has developed in favour of what is sometimes called "mercy killing"—that is, provided reasonably adequate safeguards can be brought into use in order to prevent abuse. The object of the Motion with which I am asking your Lordships to

553
agree this afternoon is to bring the matter once more into the light of discussion, in the hope that the Government will be able to see their way to accept, at any rate, the principle which lies behind the Motion, and will initiate the inquiries which are needed for the solution of the administrative difficulties pointed out by Lord Gage who answered for the Government in 1936, so that in due course the necessary legislation can be introduced. The object of such legislation is to provide a man who is suffering from an illness involving severe pain, the illness being incurable and of a fatal character, with a merciful release from his suffering.
It is obvious that stringent safeguards are necessary. I personally sec no
insuperable difficulty in obtaining stringent safeguards. The safeguards proposed in the Bill which was before your Lordships' House in 1936 were of a very comprehensive character. I should perhaps draw your Lordships' attention to some of them, and to the definition of the term "euthanasia" which has been used for want of a better term. It is a rather awkward expression but it is very difficult to find anything more satisfactory. It was described in the Bill as
"the termination of life by painless means for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary suffering."
The conditions upon which such euthanasia may be granted to a sufferer are; that he must be not less than twenty-one years of age; must be of sound mind; must be suffering from illness involving severe pain and of an incurable and fatal character; and that in order to obtain the euthanasia he must make application in writing on a form which was set out in the Schedule to the Bill. He had to sign the application for himself in the presence of two witnesses. He had to have the application supported by two medical certificates, one from his own doctor who had been looking after him during his illness, and the other from a medical practitioner who had special qualifications for dealing with cases of this kind.
That application had to be made to a referee who was appointed by the Minister of Health for the purpose of dealing with applications of this kind, and the referee had to go personally to see the sufferer in order to make quite sure that the conditions prescribed in the Bill
554
had been fulfilled and that the patient fully understood the nature and purpose of the application. Then, having satisfied himself in that way, the referee made the necessary order and the euthanasia would be administered in the presence of an official witness by a medical practitioner from a special panel maintained for the purpose. I think you Will agree that those are very stringent safeguards. But, of course, we are not in any way tied to the provisions of that Bill, and if noble Lords have suggestions for improvement, obviously they will be very welcome. Indeed, those provisions have been attacked in many quarters as being too stringent, and even when the Bill was before your Lordships' House I think one or two speakers tended to take that sort of view of them.
Although some classical philosophers like Epictetus and Seneca affirmed the right of a man who was suffering intense pain from an incurable illness to take his own life, so far as I am aware euthanasia, in the sense of a community-sanctioned taking of life, was first advocated by Sir Thomas More in the pages of that famous book, Utopia. I should like to read just a short passage from Utopia. He has been dealing with diseases and illnesses, and he says:
"If the disease be not only incurable, but also full of continual pain and anguish; then the priests and magistrates exhort the man, seeing he is not able to do any duty of life, and by over-living his own life is noisome and irksome to others and grievous to himself; that he will determine with himself no longer to cherish that pestilent and painful disease. And seeing that his life is to him but a torment, that he will not be unwilling to die … but either despatch himself out of that painful life as out of a prison, or rack of torment, or else suffer himself to be rid of it by other.
"And in so doing they tell him that he shall do wisely, seeing, by his death … he shall end his pain. And because in that act he shall follow the counsel of the priests, that is to say of the interpreters of God's will and pleasure, they show him that he shall do like a Godly and virtuous man … but they cause none such to die against his will, believing this to be an honourable death."
My Lords, I think no one could listen to those words without feeling that the great Sir Thomas More was moved by tremendous compassion for the sufferings which he had evidently seen around him. He was one of the outstanding English-men at a time of great men. He was one of the most devout men of a time when not all great men were devout. As

555
your Lordships will remember, he was also a most distinguished occupant of the Woolsack upon which the noble and learned Viscount sits this afternoon. As a humble member of the same profession, I feel that I am following in his steps in moving this Motion in your Lordships' House, and I hope also that the noble and learned Viscount will feel moved to follow in Sir Thomas More's steps. In recent times a similar feeling of compassion for the sufferings of people in the last stages of illness has moved eminent members of the medical profession to found The Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society, of which the first President was the late Lord Moynihan, one of the most eminent surgeons of the day, and a Society of which I have the honour to be a Vice-President. That Society has grown in strength over the years under the fostering guidance of its Honorary Secretary, Dr. Millard, who is the medical officer of health at Leicester.
As we are all aware, the medical profession has succeeded in a large degree in assuaging the sufferings of people who are afflicted with these illnesses. Indeed, I think we should all agree that one of the outstanding triumphs of that great profession has been the way in which it has used narcotic drugs and the discoveries made over the last century, to alleviate an enormous amount of misery. It is not possible for doctors to take this beyond a certain point, and particularly in the type of case where an illness has lasted a long time and the
patient has developed a tolerance of morphia which is still the best drug and the one most used. He may be able to take a dose as much as ten times what is normal, and still be unable to lose consciousness. It is a very terrible state of affairs when that point is reached. And how terrible such suffering may be can be realised, I think, only by those who have been brought up against it by personal contact. The Society receives hundreds of letters from people saying that if only the opponents of voluntary euthanasia could be with them to see what is happening they would withdraw their opposition.
I do not wish to harrow the feelings of your Lordships by describing a number of concrete cases, but, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to give one reminiscence from my own boyhood days. A friend of our own family
556
was stricken with cancer which lasted a long time, and she reached the stage of this tolerance being established. Morphia was no longer effective to dull her pain. My mother used to go and sit with her, and I remember her once coming back and saying that it ought to be possible to put our friend out of her misery. That made a great impression upon my mind. When I was asked to become a Vice-President of the Society it was really, I think, because of the recollection of that case more than anything else that I agreed to do so. In such cases it is not only a question of physical pain but also of the mental anguish which the patient endures; he feels that he is, himself, disintegrating under the prolonged agony. And not only has he that horrible feeling that his own personality is disintegrating, but he has the deep distress which is caused because a loved wife or daughter who is looking after him is becoming worn out, is having her life shortened, or, in the case of the daughter, possibly is giving up marriage in order to look after him. Things of that sort bring with them mental anguish which is even more intolerable than the physical.
It is one of the ironies of this matter that if an animal is suffering pain in this way, it is against the law not to put it out of its misery; but to put a fellow human being who is suffering from the same sort of pain out of his misery is one of the most heinous offences known to the Law. A man who sees his horse or his dog injured in the field and suffering great pain is, by Law, obliged to put that suffering to an end. But if his wife is suffering terrible pain he has no recourse but to grin and bear it, unless, of course, he is prepared to run the risk of prosecution for murder. And, as your Lordships have seen, on occasions people do commit what is technically murder and are prosecuted in courts of law. From time to time, sympathetic judges have said that in their view the law ought to be altered in order to enable voluntary euthanasia to be applied. The present Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, when he was a puisne Judge of the King's Bench, tried a case in which, according to the report of Lord Ponsonby's speech—it is in HANSARD, Volume 103, column 471-a wretched woman was prosecuted for killing her mother who was suffering from general paralysis of the insane. The judge spoke

557
of the possibility of a change in the law, so "that the passing of a person afflicted with an incurable disease, either in mind or body, might be expedited." He said that, of course, there must be rigorous safeguards.
And it is not only sympathetic Judges, but people in every walk of society— among them many distinguished men—who have given their support to the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society. The proposals have received widespread support from people in every rank of life. The President of the Society is a member of your Lordships' House and he is going to speak on my Motion. He is the noble Lord, Lord Denman. I think that it is true that no fewer than seven of the Vice-Presidents are members of your Lordships' House. The Society has published a pamphlet of twenty-four pages listing distinguished men in all walks of life who give it their support. I am not proposing to read that list to your Lordships. It is a very impressive list, but Heaven forbid that I should take you through all those pages! I should like, however, to refer to a few of the medical supporters, because we are going to listen this afternoon to speeches from a number of medical men who are members of your Lordships' House. I am not sure that all of them, at any rate, are my allies, but I may tell your Lordships that the medical supporters of the Society form much the largest number coming from any one profession or business. There are no fewer than four pages filled with their names which total over 200. While it would be invidious of me to pick-out individual men of distinction—and the names of many most distinguished men are to be found there—I should like to refer to some of those who have passed away. I have mentioned the late Lord Moynihan, and amongst others were Sir Arbuthnot Lane, Sir Walter Langdon Brown, Sir H. Rolleston, Sir James Purves Stewart, Sir Pendrill Varriere Jones and Sir Bruce Bruce Porter. All these have been household names known to everyone in the country.
When the 1936 Bill was before your Lordships' House, among the medical members who spoke was the late Lord Dawson of Perm, and the noble Lord, Lord Horder, whom I am very glad to see in his place this afternoon. Lord Horder spoke against the Bill on that
558
occasion; I hope he may have seen fit to repent in the interval. Unfortunately I have no reason to believe that he is now on the side of the righteous. I will not refer to the speech which he made on the occasion I have mentioned, as he is here to give his own views to-day. The speech of Lord Dawson of Penn was really a very eloquent plea for voluntary euthanasia, though he did not actually vote for the Bill—in fact he voted against it. What I think worried him was that the safeguards proposed were too stringent. I should like to draw your Lordships attention to what seems to me to be one of the most significant
passages in his speech. He gave a concrete case which was evidently one that had come within his own experience as a medical man. This is what he said:
"A woman has endured a disease with incomparable bravery for nine years, has pursued her calling and directed and sustained her home. At long last, by tile extension of the disease and diminishing strength, she is crushed by pain and complete disability. She besought peace and kindly death, and called to witness how hard she had fought. Is submerging of her sufferings to be denied her because her life might be shortened by two or three months? That can only be decided by her doctors, who know the thoughts and feelings of the patient and
the realities of her stale. This is something which belongs to the wisdom and conscience of the medical profession and not to the realm of law."
It seems to me that he was proposing to leave it to the discretion of the doctors to take a decision of that kind.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, is the noble Lord implying that Lord Dawson of Penn suggested that a doctor should, in certain conditions, give a lethal dose of a narcotic or other drug to a patient? I have a copy of Hansard containing the report of Lord Dawson's speech in my hand.
LORD CHORLEY: I leave it to your Lordships to judge from what he actually said. Whether or not that was what he intended to mean, of course, it is not within the discretion of doctors to take a decision of that kind, because the law does not permit them to do so. Whether fortunately or unfortunately, that is clear. Of course, many people hold the view that doctors, moved by the bowels of compassion, do take the law into their own hands. I discussed this once with an eminent young doctor who told me there was probably not a doctor in

559
the country who had not at one stage in his career helped a patient on his way. Obviously that is an exaggeration, because many doctors, even if they did not respect the law, have religious scruples about doing anything of the sort. Surely it is altogether wrong that the wretched patient's chance of escape from his sufferings should have to depend on the accident of who is his doctor. Is it not equally wrong that a civilised society should place the burden of such an intolerable decision upon the shoulders of an individual doctor?
Those are some of the main arguments in favour of this Motion. I should like to finish my remarks by dealing with some of the arguments which have been put upon the other side. For the most part, these arguments fall under two main heads. There are those who say that the safeguards suggested are not sufficient. I have dealt with that matter. I think, and if noble Lords will indicate in what way the safeguards are not adequate, I will do my best to deal with their point of view at the end. Another objection is that the Bill does not go far enough, because it applies only to adults and does not apply to children who come into the world deaf, dumb and crippled, and who have a much better case than those for whom the Bill provides. That may be so, but we must go step by step. Obviously, what we have in mind in our Society is that it is only a person who is able to come to a decision for himself who should be granted this method of leaving his life.
The most formidable objection has been that which has come from the Churches. I say "most formidable" because it is founded on grounds of religious conscience, and with that, of course, we all have great sympathy. The Churches say that it is only for the Lord to take away the life which He has given; and as a general proposition I think almost everybody will assent to that. But, as to every rule, there are exceptions. Almost every opponent of the abolition of capital punishment would agree that as a last resort the community has the right to take away the life of one of its citizens, and the Churches have never dissented from this point of view. Indeed, the Bishops have frequently been among the vocal opponents of proposals to abolish capital
560
punishment. What I think is of infinitely greater value than life, which, after all, we share with the animals, is the personality of the individual human being. It seems to me that perhaps one of the greatest contributions which
Christianity has made to the progress of civilisation has been the emphasis it has placed on the sacredness of personality. Suffering may, and often does, purge and strengthen and even sweeten the character; but when it is intense suffering protracted over many years, and when narcotic drugs have been administered over years in order to deaden it, it is an exceptional case in which the personality is not destroyed. The whole personality which a man's
friends loved ceases to exist except in their memories. It is our contention that a man ought to be free to maintain his personality against the pain-wracked and often drug-sodden body by freeing himself from it.
I am glad to say that more and more ministers of religion are coming into this movement. I think there are over sixty ministers of the Church of England and of the Nonconformist Churches who are supporters or subscribers to the Society, and perhaps the most moving argument which has been put on the ethical aspects of voluntary euthanasia is that which the Dean of St. Paul's delivered as recently as May last at the annual general meeting of the Society. If any of your Lordships have not seen it and would like to do so, I would gladly enable them to get a copy.
Undoubtedly there will always be people opposed to voluntary euthanasia on religious grounds, and when this Bill is on the Statute Book, as sooner or later it will be, they will not take advantage of it. We shall admire and respect their courage and the conviction of their conscience. There are always minorities who on conscientious grounds feel that this or that aspect of the law is wrong. There are many people who object to divorce on grounds of conscience and do not take advantage of the divorce laws for that reason. But the time has now gone by when those people were able to prevent other members of the community from obtaining release in that way. Indeed, their right to do so has been abandoned by the Churches themselves, as the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York frankly admitted in a speech which he made last week in the debate in your

561
Lordships' House on divorce laws. The most reverend Primate is going to speak this afternoon. I hope he will agree that logically there is, in this regard, no difference between voluntary euthanasia and divorce. I hope I have said enough about the matter to commend this Motion to your Lordships, and I beg to move for Papers.
4.59 p.m.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, there is a long list of speakers who wish to address you this afternoon and I intervene only for a few moments to reinforce, if I can do so. the case which has been so ably made by my noble friend Lord Chorley in favour of voluntary euthanasia. I am aware of the strong objection that exists in this House, and outside it, against these proposals, but I think it is also true to say that there is a growing force of public opinion in our favour. As my noble friend has mentioned, there are representatives of the Churches, the medical profession, the law, the fighting services— indeed, of almost every profession—in the list of supporters of the Society to which I belong. Perhaps I should add that there are also members of the Government and From Opposition Benches on the list.
I should like to refer for a moment to the debate which took place in your Lordships' House some fourteen years ago on Lord Ponsonby's Bill, when the late Lord Dawson of Penn made a most important speech. When the debate was over I got into conversation with Lord Dawson and, discussing the Bill, he said: "This Bill that you advocate is really unnecessary, because we already do what you seek to do under the proposals in the Bill" —and he had hinted at something of the kind in the speech that he made to your Lord-ships. As to that, I would say only that while it may be possible for an eminent physician like the late Lord Dawson of Penn to do as he likes in a matter of this kind, it is a different thing for the ordinary general practitioner, who has to take the risk of prosecution, and possibly of professional ruin.
I believe that that is borne out by letters received by the Dean of St. Paul's after the speech he made at the annual meeting of the Society to which Lord Chorley has referred. Dr. Matthews received a great many letters, and I would venture to quote from two of them: The first letter says:
562
"We had the bitter experience of seeing our mother operated on for cancer, no cure, then slowly dying until death came as a really happy release. The surgeon told us immediately after the operation that there was no hope and that nothing remained for her. and us, but the misery of approaching, inevitable death. To my query: 'Why didn't you let her die in the operation?.' as he so easily might have done, he replied there was the reputation of the nursing home, and his own, to be considered."
I quote from another letter, which says:
"I have watched helpless while one I loved suffered unto death and I longed dearly that she could have 'ceased upon the midnight with no pain.' Some day that for which you plead will come and people will wonder why it waited so long."
These cases and many others are caused by that terrible disease, cancer. In spite of all the research that is going on, I believe it is true to say that cancer is still on the increase to-day. I have some figures here, which I believe to be correct, showing that in 1938, two years after Lord Ponsonby's Bill, deaths from cancer were nearly 67,000, and that in 1948 they had risen to over 79,000. Only in a small proportion of these cases could the pro-vision of voluntary euthanasia be suitably invoked, but, even so, how much human suffering might be spared! I am glad to support the Motion moved by my noble friend.
5.4 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, it is with a great reluctance that I speak on this subject, because I so fully appreciate what is felt by those who are supporting this particular policy. I have visited probably as many people dying from an incurable disease as anyone in this House, with the exception, of course, of the medical profession. I know how often I have felt that one could only hope and pray that death might come speedily. So it is not through any lack of sympathy that I find myself in opposition to the policy which has been urged by the two noble Lords who have spoken. I am taking merely the same line as was taken in the previous debate—I think it was in 1936-by the Archbishop of Canterbury of that time. For reasons both religious and social I find myself in opposition. In one way I come closer to the noble Lord than he might expect, and so did 1he Archbishop of Canterbury of that lime. I recognise that a doctor is often right in deciding that in some illness a point has to be

563
reached when the alleviation of pain is of greater importance than the prolonging of dying.
Reference has already been made to the speech of the late Lord Dawson of Penn. That speech impressed me greatly. He said that the medical profession in the past used to lay all the emphasis on pro-longing life, but that increasingly in recent years the emphasis had been laid on the alleviation of pain. I cannot, therefore, criticise the physician who, with a full sense of responsibility, uses means for the alleviation of pain, even if by so doing the result is the shortening of the life of a patient dying from an incurable disease. The duty of prolonging life is not the same as prolonging dying. But yet, I feel that this situation is entirely different from having legislation on the subject. It would be a serious matter indeed if for the first time on our Statute Book there appeared a law giving certain people licence to kill—for it comes to that—some of their fellow men and women. Only in one sense is that allowed—namely, in the case of capital punishment, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. But, after all, capital punishment is justified because it is a vindication of the sacredness of human life. If once we begin to allow legislation of this kind we put our feet on a very slippery slope.
The noble Lord did not hide from us that this was only the beginning. He said: "We are to proceed step by step." He gave an illustration of what might be another cause for allowing euthanasia —namely, that of a daughter who is prevented from marriage by the incurable illness of her mother.
LORD CHORLEY: If I may interrupt the most reverend Primate, I did not say that. What I said was that half the anguish felt by a person suffering in this way was caused by the fact that he knew he was breaking down his wife's health, or possibly preventing his daughter from getting married, or something of that kind.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Of course, I accept the noble Lord's explanation, and I will refer to that again later. If we once begin to allow this, where are we to stop? Now it is proposed that this right should be
564
granted in connection with excessive pain. Why not also to those who are born feeble-minded? Why not also to those who are physically so crippled that they can be of no service to the nation? Why also should it not be applied to those who are in our mental asylums? It has to be remembered that Germany placed its feet on this slippery slope, and euthanasia, which at first was applied only to a very few, was eventually, under the stress of war especially, applied to a large number of people who were regarded as useless mouths in a time of emergency. I feel that there is real danger if we once begin legislating in this way. This kind of legislation will, I believe, ultimately weaken the value which we attach to human life. One of the great characteristics of our civilisation, contrasted with the materialistic civilisation of Communism, is the value we attach to every human life. Imperceptibly and gradually this value in human life will be reduced if by law it is possible year by year to kill a large number of people. There is another point—a very practical point—which one has to bear in mind. I believe that if this law is passed it will cause very great anguish and anxiety to a very large number of old people who are suffering from some kind of infirmity from which they can never recover. I have often been struck by the way in which old people still cling to life. They may, in moments of depression, speak of a longing for death, but nevertheless most of them wish to live. There are among these old people two groups of whom I am especially thinking. There are those who are always suspicious of those around them—suspicious lest they want to get rid of them. If they knew that there was a law which would make this a possibility, their suspicion would increase still more.
LORD CHORLEY: If the most reverend Primate will allow me to interrupt him once more, I never suggested that this sort of thing should take place without the full voluntary request, the actual express request, of the patient. I was not contemplating the sort of case he is putting.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: There is a larger group of people to whom the noble Lord made reference in his first interruption—namely, the really conscientious old people, who even now get extremely worried because they feel that they are a burden on those upon whom

565
they are dependent. I can imagine the way in which their consciences would in future be torn, wondering whether they ought to apply for this euthanasia so as to relieve those who are caring for them of the burden. These are real facts of human nature. I am speaking not from theory, but from the experience I have gained through visiting large numbers of these old people, who are often incurably ill. I am very doubtful whether any of the regulations to which the noble Lord referred will really be a sufficient safeguard. It is almost impossible to know what pressure may quietly be brought upon the people behind the scenes. We are told that the application must be a voluntary application, but in some of these extreme cases of illness, when the mind has been weakened by morphia and pain, it is very difficult to know whether the patient fully understands what he or she is asking for. Of course, one of the criticisms, if I remember aright, which was made on the last occasion to the Bill which was then before us, was the criticism of the suspense. There would possibly be weeks of suspense before licence to kill was granted. In fact, it was pointed out that in some cases the patient might die before the licence was granted—not an improbable contingency, when we re-member the delay we sometimes find in the granting of licences by many of our Government Departments to-day.
These are all details. I am extremely doubtful whether it would be possible to devise a measure that would give sufficient safeguard and, at the same time, avoid the intolerable suspense of delay. Therefore, it is partly on religious grounds, but also on general social grounds, that I am opposed to the proposal which the noble Lord has made to us. I fully recognise the difficulties which must be felt by many of the doctors, and I shall naturally wait with the greatest interest to hear the opinions they express on this matter. But so far as I am concerned, I am afraid that I must definitely express my opposition to this proposal.
5.15 p.m.
LORD HORDER: My Lords, I think it would be regarded as anomalous if I, a doctor, made no contribution to this debate. Yet, as I pointed out in 1936 when this matter came before your Lordships, it is not really a doctor's job to settle this matter. It is quite clear to
566
me that if a community decides to terminate life, or a part of life, it will fall to the doctor to do it; but with all the guidance the doctor may be able to give —and I hope I may be able to give a little guidance—I hope the decision will not lie with our profession. There are some of our critics who might advance the view that we already kill enough people.
Putting an end to human life surely involves a new principle in biological control. I think it is a principle so foreign to the general sense of the community that I shall be very surprised if the prediction of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, comes about in his lifetime, or ever. As to the doctor's reference, which is generally accepted, I think it is very clear and very brief. It has been referred to already, and it is: To cure the patient's disease, if he can, and, if he cannot, to prolong the patient's life so far as may be, relieving pain, that worst of evils, whether physical or mental. It is to be observed that a good doctor does that to which the most reverend Primate referred—may I say, attributing a remark of mine to my colleague, the late Lord Dawson—a good doctor distinguishes between prolonging life and prolonging the act of dying. Any sanction which would lead to a different orientation of the doctor's function and which would, as in the case under consideration, put the doctor's function in reverse, in my judgment would not be in the public interest.
I spoke earlier of guidance. By that I mean that all the pertinent facts connected with this matter do, of course, come before us. That again was referred to by the most reverend Primate. The medical profession and his profession see more of this situation than anyone else. If I may, I would crave your Lordships' indulgence and touch upon some of these, as I call them, attendant facts—that is, actual experiences in our lives. Shall I start with the desire of the patient to terminate his life? Will it surprise your Lordships to know that that request comes much more frequently from patients who are not suffering from a so-called incurable disease, and who are not as a group in great pain? They are in a slate of what our French colleagues called misère, and the desire to terminate life is not in their own minds conditioned either by the fact of their disease being

567
for the time being incurable or by the degree of their pain. This fact perhaps has some affinity with that other distressing fact of which we are becoming aware; that it is not the people who have suffered the heat and burden of the day but the relatively young and immature who want to terminate their lives, and do so.
Your Lordships have heard the criteria laid down by the euthanasia advocates to start this legal sanction going: an incurable disease, great pain and soundness of mind on the part of the patient. As to incurable disease, the term falls very glibly from our lips but it is a fact that the disease that is incurable to-day is cured next year. Is society ready to look back upon a number of lives that may have been sacrificed, any of which might have been the first to be cured of the particular disease from which the patient suffered? As to incurability of a disease in general, incurability is the measure at the moment of the doctor's experience, and those who have the most experience use the term "incurable" least often, because in medicine we talk more and more of controlling disease, rather than of curing it.
As to pain, the second criterion, if I may use medical jargon the "threshold of pain" varies enormously in different patients, and therefore only the experienced doctor can judge how much pain is being suffered. We have never possessed so many means of relieving pain as we do to-day. The noble Lord summed them all up in one word—morphia. May I say that there are numerous derivatives of morphia, and there are numerous substitutes for morphia, amongst which we have to choose the anodyne which is best suited to the particular patient. That there are doctors who lack facility in the use of these remedies must not be taken as an argument in favour of euthanasia; nor, in these days, must it be taken as an argument in favour of euthanasia that doctors have no time to sort these remedies. They are available. As I say. so far as physical pain is concerned, I cannot see that that is a positive reason for terminating life. The pain should be assuaged.
Here I come to the question of morale. I realise that I risk a charge of inhumanity if I stress the point, but I do it only
568
because again and again patients ask for help in this direction. It is inherent in their question, a very common question: "You will stand by me, won't you doctor?" My Lords, what does that question mean? It does not mean, "Abolish my pain" as simply as that. It does mean, "Help me to get rid of this pain, and if it cannot be got rid of entirely (subject to not producing a state of coma, which is non-existence) then help me to bear with fortitude what I am able to bear." Another question is: "Am I up against it, doctor?" If the patient really knows what he is saying in asking, the doctor says, "I am afraid you are." In my experience, the attitude of most patients is that of the soldier who wishes to face the enemy.
Illness, and even pain, for many people constitute a new experience, an unhappy experience; but it has spiritual significance, and, may I say, in my judgment spiritual value. To call the function of a doctor who helps a patient to achieve that degree of elevation of spirit an intolerable burden—as the euthanasia advocate is apt to call it—seems to me to be disparaging one of the very important duties that a doctor has to perform. The two extremes of dying in pain and being killed do not exhaust the possibilities of the stricken patient. There is a middle position, achieved again and again by a kindly and skilful doctor who gives assistance to a fellow human being who has by this time become an intimate friend. These are human happenings, my Lords. It is true that a recent, and very powerful, arrival in the camp of the euthanasia movement is slightly changing the usual, shall I say, propaganda, in the direction of what is claimed to be a new set of ethics. "New occasions teach new-duties," said the right reverend the Dean of St. Pauls, and "rules that were once valid and useful may become obsolete." I am as suspicious of new ethics as was Sir Thomas Browne. I have always felt rather dubious when people talk of the doctor ousting the priest, but perhaps we shall see that that does sometimes happen.
The third criterion is that the patient must be of sound mind—a matter which has been touched upon by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. There is no less difficulty in judging of the patient's state of mind than in assessing the amount of his paiin and the incurability of his

569
disease. It is not that the mind of the patient suffering from a lethal illness is unsound in the legal sense—that is not the point. It is rather that the patient's mind is uncertain; it is fitful; it is variable; it has little certainty or clearness of purpose. During the morning depression the patient rather favours the application for euthanasia. Then, later in the day, he thinks quite differently or he has forgotten what happened in the morning. The mental clarity with which euthanasia advocates are able to think and project their own robust physique and mentality into the situation of the patient is, in my judgment, a danger that must be guarded against.
That brings me to my last consideration, one which I think advocates of euthanasia in general may not have considered sufficiently. Will not some persons who arc smitten with lethal illness misinterpret the raised eyebrows of some of their friends, and feel, as the English monarch was alleged to have felt when he was taking some time in dying, apologetic for being so long? Will not a good number of people avail themselves, or think that they ought to avail themselves, of a legalised permit to ring down the curtain? The most reverend Primate referred to the old people. I entirely share his view. I think there would be a number of old people who would feel that they are encumbering the ground and would like to contribute by this act to make room for someone else. Your Lordships may remember the picture painted by Browning of the sick man, sick unto death. His approaching end and even his obsequies were the subject of discussion and whispered conversation around his bed:
"And still the man hears all and only craves
He may not shame such tender love and slay."
That is the point I wish to make, because we obviously must distinguish between the trials of the patient and the trials of the relatives and friends. I remember being rather shocked when one of the noble Lords who supported the Euthanasia Bill fourteen years ago stressed this consciousness in the mind of the patient of being a burden. He said that he considered it a very important condition for legalising euthanasia. Like most, doctors, I am not often shocked, but on that occasion I was. I recollect
570
once, after a consultation, being addressed by a very tense-faced. relative whom I had been trying to assure, in respect of his father, that there was no pain, mental or physical. "But doctor," said the son, "this agony must not go on." I hope your Lordships will agree that it was right for me to look him straight in the eye and ask, "Whose agony?" Upstairs an old man lay peacefully but slowly dying, and downstairs people could not stand and wait.
We doctors hold certain basic considerations about life. We think that every man has an inalienable right to live, and that one must not take this right from him, even if he allows one to do so on a set of circumstances outside himself. I have dealt with some of the other risks. I regard this almost as the greatest risk. I have drawn rather fully upon an address I made in your Lordships' House on this matter in 1936, for, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said about a lot of water having gone under the bridge. I have not heard any arguments so far to lead me to think that he is correct. I rather think that the subject of euthanasia is where we left it fourteen years ago. By the way, I did not speak against the Bill then any more than I have done against the Motion this evening . If any remarks of mine lead noble Lords to this or the other view, well, that is, in the vernacular, "just too bad." I feel it is my duty to give your Lordships some aspects of this question that come to me every day of my life.
5.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, it is a very fortunate thing that Sir Thomas More with his contemporaries did not fall into the same error regarding the book Utopia as has misled the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. Sir Thomas lived in an age markedly less tolerant than ours. Had the devout and frequently orthodox monarch, Henry the Eighth, supposed that the pious, devout and exceedingly orthodox Thomas More was, in fact, advocating so heretical a practice as euthanasia, the book would certainly have been burnt by the common hangman, and Sir Thomas More himself would have been in much danger of sharing the same fate. In the end he did share that fate, but it would have come to him much earlier in life than it in fact came.

571
We do not suppose that all the authors of books about imaginary countries advocate all the practices that they describe. We do not really suppose that H. G. Wells desired to see the sort of society which he envisaged in the Time Machine. We do not attribute to Samuel Butler the medical principles of the inhabitants of Erewhon. We do not think that Dean Swift really agreed with the arguments of the professors of Laputa who attempted to get sunbeams out of cucumbers. Sir Thomas More had a very interesting purpose in writing Utopia. He was answering a question of deep contemporary interest: what sort of institutions would be likely to exist in a state which had reached a high degree of civilisation and without any assistance from the Christian revelation. He attributes to the Utopians a natural religion without the aid of any Divine revelation. In such circumstances, it would be probable enough that they would get their moral theology wrong on certain points, and it is almost certain that they would be attracted by the arguments that can justly be used in favour of the practice of euthanasia.
The basic argument for that practice is that given by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in his speech: We do not allow an animal to suffer useless pain; why should we withhold the same kind of mercy from a human being? My Lords, that argument will undoubtedly have its strongest appeal to those who minimise the distinction between the animal and the human creation. If you feel that the difference between a man and an animal is primarily a difference of degree rather than of kind, you will be much attracted by the argument in question. I do not, for a moment, mean that even the strictest and strongest Rationalist will do well to vote for a Euthanasia Bill. Enough has been said already to show how very dangerous such legislation would be to society. Nevertheless, we may expect that the strongest opponents of the practice will be among the adherents of revealed religions—and here I bring forward again an argument used by my much respected friend the late Lord Fitzalan when he addressed the House in 1936. This is not a matter of one religion only. The doctrine of euthanasia, as a doctrine which infringes
572
upon divine sovereignty over human life, has been rejected by the orthodox Jews from time immemorial, by the Christians for nineteen centuries, and by the Mohammedans since the flight of the Prophet. When I am told to-day that there are sixty clergymen who take a different view, frankly I am not very much impressed. They appear to see this as a new problem; but what is there new about it? They are compassionate men; but are they more compassionate than the saints and sages of all these ages of Christianity, who after all saw much more incurable disease than we see and far worse suffering than we witness? They had not the means which we have of alleviating suffering, but they refused the specious arguments in favour of euthanasia, on two grounds.
There is a subject which I must mention, because I would not have it thought that I or anyone else on my side of this question take a negative attitude towards it, although it is a difficult subject to discuss at length. The Christian believes not merely that pain has a natural value, in that it may in some cases improve the character; the Christian also believes that it has a supernatural value. We are, of course, bound to relieve pain wherever possible. We ought to relieve the pain of the sufferer by giving him every drug and every comfort at our command. However, not only in cases of sickness but throughout the whole of life there is a vast residue of pain which cannot be alleviated and which we are taught to believe is of genuine value. I will not say-more on this subject, save only to remind your Lordships that we do sometimes see in obituary columns a notice that such and such a person died after many years of suffering courageously borne. We do not feel that that suffering has been a waste. We feel that such a notice is a very noble epitaph indeed.
The other base of the Christian position is the sanctity of human life—and here, again, we meet the Rationalist. A Rationalist may pick and choose among the Ten Commandments in a way that the Christian is not privileged to do. He may reject the first three Commandments; he may reject others, or modify them, or consider them to need reinterpretation. But he will tend to agree that there is much to be said for the Commandment,

573
"Thou shalt not kill." It has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley (I hope I have understood him correctly), that the position of a judge who gives a death sentence is in some way an exception to the law "Thou shalt not kill." I do not think that that position will bear close examination. The judge is one to whom society has committed the exercise of the right of self defence which is inherent in every man, and which is, in fact, a part of our conception of the sanctity of human life. We hand those powers of self-defence over to the judge for the protection of society, just as in other circum-stances we would hand them to the soldier on whom also we impose the duty of taking human life. If these be exceptions, then I say they are the exceptions that prove the rule. I can conceive nothing more dangerous than to suppose that by an Act of Parliament you can create another class licensed to bring death; and I can conceive nothing more psychologically foolish and disruptive than to give those functions to doctors known to us all as the bringers of life and health.
My Lords, these are not matters solely of reason, but also of the racial conscious-ness by which we are often so deeply moved. The most reverend Primate has pointed out how dangerous it is to solve problems by the short cut of death. So many problems can so easily be solved, so many Gordian knots are there to be cut, if we wish to use that method! I could not help wondering whether some significance did not lie in the references made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, to the destruction of personality. Where do you get a more evident case of the destruction of personality than in the lunatic? Once we open our minds to this kind of short cut we have opened our minds to others. I feel that even the mere debating of such questions has a certain danger. The new morality can so easily lead to the very old sin. Consider the situation of some young woman, worn out by nursing a patient. Is she not sometimes tempted to think, and will she not be more and more tempted to think as this subject is advocated: "If the patient cannot decide for herself, is it not ray duty to make up my mind for her?" And what of the situation of the patient, becoming increasingly conscious that she
is being nursed by one who wishes she were dead? There is something very
574
terrible about this reversal of the morale of the sick room. The sick room is based upon a set of conventions. The supreme basis is the determination of nurse and patient alike to continue the struggle, however hopeless it may seem. How very unwise it is, and how very unkind it will prove, to tamper with these convictions, even if you call them conventions!
5.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I think that Lord Chorley is greatly to be congratulated on his courage in opening this discussion this afternoon, because although many distinguished people have signified their adherence to this idea there is no question that it will meet with great opposition in your Lordships' House, and also in the country, which this House always so admirably reflects. It is no good, I think, trying to make out that euthanasia is an innocent or harmless project. I would not say it was revolutionary, but it is certainly an evolutionary extension of liberty of great importance, giving to the individual new rights to which, up till now, he has not had access. These rights in other directions have already been admitted.
Following birth control, and by divorce. there has been a greatly reduced area of human misery. What we propose this afternoon is, in point of fact, a new freedom, and undoubtedly it will antagonise the embattled forces of the official world, to be represented by the Lord Chancellor's speech at the end of the debate to-day.
In the past, it has been no easy matter to establish freedoms in birth control and divorce, and it will probably be still harder in this new field which covers such a vast abyss of pain and sorrow. I do not think that we have any right to expect that the Church will relax its opposition to what we are trying to obtain. It has not done so, nor can it do so, with regard to birth control and divorce. The most that I think we can hope for from the Church is ultimate acquiescence in whatever action the State may take. But there are two arguments
against this project which I do not think can be permanently maintained. One is that it is open to abuse. Of course, all freedoms are open to abuse, but we try, and shall continue to try, to guard against that, and shall hedge this freedom round with precautions and safeguards. In point of fact, however, the argument about liability to

575
abuse has no real validity against any form of freedom. The second argument is that the doctors are against it. We all know, from our recent reading of the life of Miss Florence Nightingale, that at the time when she was trying to reduce the sum of human misery the doctors were against her. And, quite recently, when Mr. Bevan brought forward his great measure for public health (which I regard as one of the two great achievements of this Government, the other being their policy on India) I cannot say that I noticed any affection among the doctors for Mr. Bevan's proposals. It is true that in the end, while whispering that they would ne'er consent, they did in fact consent. And I hope they will do so again when it comes to this subject, because, after all, my hope is based on the long and noble tradition of reducing pain and suffering which has been for all time the business of the medical profession.
I have—as I am sure everyone else in this House has—the greatest respect for religious doctrines and professional scruples. But surely the quality of mercy should not be strained to the advantage of those doctrines and those scruples. I do not see how I could stand up in this House—I, who have lived seventy years without having to undergo any form of physical pain—and try to deny to others the release from suffering that I myself have not had to undergo. Many, of course, will not desire this release. Some people bear pain better than others do. Women, I have always been given to understand, bear pain very much better than men do. But to those—and there are many—who find pain intolerable I cannot see how we can deny
them the freedom to end it. A humane phrase which has been much quoted this
afternoon with regard to animals says that we are right to put them out of their misery. In this connection, I could not quite follow the argument used by the noble Earl who spoke immediately before me. If I drew the same distinction as he does between animals and human beings, I should put human beings first. Therefore, it seems intolerable to me that in this matter animals should be better treated than human beings. After all, the reason why we treat animals so well in this respect is that we cannot bear to see them suffering. They cannot
576
choose for themselves as we can; but surely we should have such liberty of choice.
The last time that we debated this question in your Lordships' House I believe that the side for which I am speaking this afternoon had six votes in their favour. If we were to divide this afternoon I should hope for seven. But it would not make any difference to my feeling if we had fewer than six. I have spent my life mainly in minorities, and I have never been prouder to belong to a minority than I am to belong to this, which is probably the smallest of them all. I wish that I were eloquent enough to make the wind of history whistle through your Lordships' House, because I believe that posterity will look back on this refusal you are going to make this afternoon, or which is to be made for you by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, as people look now on the burning of witches— as a barbarous survival of mediæval ideas, an example of that high-minded cruelty from the entanglement of which it has taken mankind so many centuries to emerge. In that day we few, we five or six shall, I believe, be remembered.
6.1 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I do not want to take up a great deal of time, because the points which I wish to put before your Lordships have been put far better than I could, one by the most reverend primate, the Lord Archbishop of York, and the other by my noble friend, Lord Horder, who has put the medical profession's point of view very clearly. I should like to support him in what he says and to emphasise one point he made about the change that a law of this sort would make in the atmosphere of the sick room, where at present the patient is convinced that the doctors and nurses are doing their best to alleviate his pain. If he felt that one day the doctor would come in as executioner, even though he might long to end his life him-self because of his pain, I do not feel that it would lead to an improvement in the relations between doctor and patient, and it would not be for the benefit of the patient in the long run. My second point in approaching this question from the medical angle is that at the present time the patient who is suffering intense agony constitutes a perpetual challenge to the

577
members of my profession to find means to alleviate that pain and make him as comfortable and contented as possible. In the last ten or twenty years a great deal has been done towards that end, not merely by the use of narcotics, but by minor surgical operations and various treatments, which have done away with what has now been proved to be unnecessary pain and suffering. The further extension of that work would be much better for patients, doctors and the world in general.
Where is this process of euthanasia going to end? The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was tempted himself to say something about "step by step." I can see a slow declension once we break away from the principle of the sanctity of human life. I was brought up very firmly on that principle and in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it was generally held. The effects of two wars, however, with the unpleasant occurrences between and after the wars, have led to a great weakening in that principle. I am sure that once we legally broke down that principle there would occur what occurred in Germany before the war, when mental defectives were put out of their misery, mad people were destroyed and people suffering from all sorts of incurable diseases were given release. It is much better to encourage the medical profession to find out forms of treatment and to alleviate pain rather than to encourage them, speaking quite frankly, to kill people because they are in so much pain. I hope very firmly that your Lordships will reject the Motion before the House this afternoon.
6.5 p.m.
LORD UVEDALE OF NORTH END: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has put forward the case for euthanasia this afternoon with his accustomed clearness, and with your permission I will make a few observations from the medical point of view only, leaving noble Lords better qualified than myself to deal with the moral and legal aspects of the problem. So far as this country is concerned, euthanasia has been advocated for imbecile infants deformed in body or brain, for hopeless moral perverts, for the chronic sick wracked with pain, for the insane with degeneration of the nervous system rendering them subhuman, and as a means of terminating
578
distressing illness certain to prove fatal in a short time. Under our humane laws the infants referred to are cared for until their existence terminates by natural process. The moral perverts present a problem in which both Church and State are interested. The chronic sick are fortunate if they can get hospital treatment, and must otherwise rely on the attention of relatives and friends and their local general practitioner. The insane are carefully protected. The dying are relieved by drugs. If the physician should give an overdose of drug to terminate an illness, as the law now stands he may be charged with premeditated murder.
The question before us this afternoon is: what justification is there for legalising euthanasia which, it must be agreed, is a confession of failure so far as other measures are concerned? The cases that are brought to our notice naturally fall into two classes: those where the victim is not capable of expressing any wish to live or to die; and secondly, those where the patient expresses an urgent desire that his suffering should be terminated in this way. The discussion has not turned in any way on the first group, which can be left to the national conscience. But with regard to the second group, no doubt there are certain diseases that are in our minds when we contemplate the position. The layman usually thinks of advanced cancer cases. There are other diseases where the sufferings of the patient may reach the limit of human endurance. The asthmatic in his acute attacks passes to the very edge of the grave with a feeling of imminent dissolution. The person suffering from rheumatoid arthritis may be so crippled and in such pain as to lose all desire to live. Trigeminal neuralgia is one of the most dreadful diseases that afflict humanity. But in thinking of these dire diseases we must not forget that efficient and early treatment will do a great deal to check the advance of these diseases and to reduce the number of those who pass to the final tragic stage. My own opinion, based on my experience, is that there are few cases at present where euthanasia should be contemplated, and the outlook is that these cases will become fewer still as new remedies are introduced.
It may be, however, that there are cases where euthanasia would be justified. These are cases where, in the first place,

579
the disease is irremediable, and, in the second place, where there is an urgent desire on the part of the patient for death —a desire reasonable and consistent. But it is not easy to satisfy those conditions. I fear it is notorious that doctors are occasionally wrong in diagnosis. I have in mind at the moment two cases of this nature. In the one case I consulted with two of the most eminent members of the profession, and we were agreed that the patient had only six months to live. The patient died years afterward from an entirely different complaint. There has recently been in the hospital where I work a patient who was examined by a team of doctors from two of the best known hospitals in London. They pronounced him incurable, and he was admitted to hospital on compassionate grounds. I had the pleasure about twelve months afterwards of certifying him as fit for light work. Even if you have a team of doctors to deal with these cases, there is always the possibility of error.
I venture to think that, before euthanasia could be properly carried out, the matter would have to go before a medical jury—and even that jury might come to a wrong conclusion. But supposing that directions are given for the euthanasia to be carried out, then it is clear that it cannot be carried out by
the practitioner who is in charge of the case. Usually, in the late stage of disease there is a bond of sympathy and affection existing between doctor and patient, and the practitioner would be horrified at the idea of having to terminate in this way his patient's suffering. If I may recall another personal experience, it is of a colleague who was instructed by the Home Office to examine a murderer. He came to me in great distress to say that he had found him perfectly sane, and that he could not accept the fee for that type of work but had presented it to a hospital. The only way of carrying out the decisions of such a medical jury would be by a panel of euthanasia specialists. I believe these considerations have been in the minds of those who are in favour of euthanasia. I have not spoken of euthanasia as a means of easing the burdens of relatives or nurses, because I am quite sure that there are other ways of doing that, and it is a matter for the Ministry of Health. In conclusion, I would
580
say that the problem should be approached with great caution, remembering with all humility that euthanasia is an admission of failure and a counsel of despair.
6.17 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, in preparation for this debate this afternoon I read the debate reported in the 1936 Hansard, and to my mind one of the striking facts to emerge from that reading is that no progress whatsoever has been made by those who are advocating euthanasia in assembling arguments which might bring any kind of conviction to an unprejudiced audience. The late Lord Dawson of Penn spoke in that debate, and as cancer has been mentioned several times to-day, and is obviously in the minds of a number of people, I might mention that that great medical authority in his speech laid special emphasis on the fact that
"In relation to cancer especially, it would not be correct to say that most cases of cancer are characterised by agonising pain."
He further said:
"There has been in the last few years a steady growth of power on the part of my profession to assuage pain. We see it in the growth of the excellence of nursing and in the increase in the number of medicinal remedies, and it may be fairly said that there is much more control of pain to-day than there existed years ago."
I should like to emphasise that Lord Dawson, although he discussed at some length the question of euthanasia, ex-pressed his opinion in the way in which such a conclusion is best expressed, by voting against the Bill.
I have been struck to-day by the fact that those who have spoken in favour of euthanasia, to which I am opposed, have not brought forward any evidence as to the need of mercy killing. How many cases are there? Cancer has been referred to, and that I feel has been adequately disposed of in Lord Dawson's words. The noble Lord, Lord Uvedale, who spoke before me, mentioned his own experience. I think one is entitled to ask those who speak on behalf of the introduction of a Bill of this nature how-many cases there are. Is there really any case at all for introducing euthanasia? Let me point out that when Lord Dawson of Penn spoke of the great improvement in therapeutic methods and the introduction of new medicines, it was in

581
1936. We are now living in 1950, and since 1936 there has been what amounts almost to a revolution in the introduction of new methods of treatment, in the medicinal substances such as penicillin, the sulphonamides and a number of other substances of a similar kind. I will not go into details, for this is not a proper occasion upon which to do so, but there is now a very much greater and more powerful armoury of drugs in the hands of the medical profession to deal with pain and to relieve suffering than there was a few years ago.
I should like to ask upon what experience of doctors is it alleged that this demand for euthanasia is based. I began practice at a very early age—not very much over twenty-one. I have practised in the slum districts of Southwark; I have practised in other parts of this country, and I have practised in South Africa. I have had a very considerable experience of medical work in the Services, both in World War I and World War II. I cannot recall these examples of terrible pain which called for a consideration of euthanasia. I cannot recall that I have not been able to sooth and assuage pain. I wonder how many doctors have had cases of terrible pain that they have not been able to assuage? I have known terrible cases of very great suffering on the part of relatives watching nearby while someone dies. That is a very terrible thing, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Horder, was quite right when he asked the son of a father: "Who is suffering?" That is sometimes much more serious than the suffering of the patient himself.
When the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was speaking of his boyhood impression of the suffering of a woman friend of his family, I could not help wondering whether that had not had such an effect upon his mind as to distort his judgment in this matter. I can quite believe that it was a terrible thing, but I think it may have made such an impression upon him that he has not got this medical question really in focus. I would point out that neither the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, nor the noble Lord, Lord Denman, so far as I know, have any medical experience at all. I know some of the doctors who have been mentioned as supporters of euthanasia, but having made an inquiry on the matter I should like to report that at the recent meeting of the World Medi-
582
cal Association, which met in April or May of this year in Scandinavia, a resolution was passed against euthanasia. That Association represents doctors from every country in the world which chooses to send delegates. I think one may say that a very great majority of the opinion in the whole medical profession of the world is against euthanasia.
Let me look at another aspect of the matter. There is this question, rather glossed over by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, of the possible extension of euthanasia. The Bill which was moved in 1936-one of the rare copies of which I have in my hand, and which I am sworn by solemn oath to return to the Library, because copies are so scarce—lays down the conditions under which euthanasia may be given. No advance has been made on that at all, and this, quite: frankly, strikes me as being very crude. That Bill was moved by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, one who had less knowledge of medical subjects than most people of my acquaintance.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord is being rather unfair. The late Lord Ponsonby moved the Second Reading of the Bill only because of Lord Moynihan's death. He was to have moved it, and he was a very eminent medical man.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: He was certainly an eminent medical man, but I do not think Lord Ponsonby had much medical knowledge, and I think it would have been better to choose somebody else who had. With regard to the extension of euthanasia, once this practice is established and a law passed, remember that there is an arrangement now by which we can extend things by regulation and order. It is proposed to apply euthanasia to patients who are very seriously ill and unlikely to recover, and who are suffering great pain. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, suggested that it might be applied to a small child.
LORD CHORLEY: That suggestion was made in a leading article in a recent number of The Medical Officers of Health Magazine, and it was not my suggestion at all. The noble Lord continues to misrepresent me in this matter.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: Another suggestion is that euthanasia should be ex-tended—the noble Lord, Lord Uvedale

583
mentioned this—to some mentally defective children. I have visited an institution where extreme cases of mental and physical defect were collected together. The children were small—many of them confined to their beds or cribs. They had tiny little heads, not half the normal size. They looked animal-like, and they could by no human possibility ever have been improved from that condition. Now why, if euthanasia is to be applied, should not those children be removed from the earthly scene? After all, they are taking up medical practitioners' time; they are taking up nurses' time, and they are taking up the money of the general public. Why should not the hopeless lunatics be included, if this argument for euthanasia is continued? There are a great many of them quite hopeless. Why should we not go the whole "Hitler hog" and set up concentration camps to which we could send the people whom we do not like, on the ground that they are mentally and medically unfit?
As a doctor I really do feel—and I have no shame in announcing it—a sense of outrage that this proposal has been brought before us. The medical profession are brought up to work hard. They train themselves to help, to heal and to save people. I would save anyone, who-ever he was, black or white, a soldier on our own side or an enemy. I have myself, as part of my medical duty, helped and tried to save the life of a German soldier under conditions when he and I were both under fire. I would do it again, and so would hundreds of other doctors. I am quite convinced that the vast body of doctors in
this country are those who feel that, whoever else is going to administer this euthanasia, it should not be they themselves. It is the business of the medical profession to help and to heal, and not to go into this pathological excursion into the realms of the unconscious and bring out of it some horrible idea of euthanasia for certain classes of people. I speak with a good deal of emotion in this matter, because I feel a great deal of emotion. I have always felt that a doctor is a man who, by his profession, has vowed himself to the service of mankind in a very special way, to serve—and God knows he often has to serve in the most terrible and appalling conditions. But the suggestion that the business of euthanasia should be put into our hands,
584
that we should meet round the bedside of a patient and then give the patient some injection which causes death, is, to us, a dishonourable one. I hope the House will reject this Motion very finally indeed.
6.30 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I intervene at this late hour and without any premeditation only in order to make it clear in your Lordships' House that the medical members are unanimous in rejecting this idea. After fifty years contact with death from time to time, one is bound to reject it, as my colleagues have done from their experience. I am surprised to find protagonists amongst the descendants of medical men, Lord Moynihan and Lord Denman. The father of the first Lord Denman was Lord Chief Justice of England and a distinguished ornament of the medical profession. However, the ideas they have gathered since their progenitors' time I would reject, and my colleagues practising in the profession have done the same. I think the idea of euthanasia is dreadful, when one has spent a lifetime in taking great risks to save human life, realising the truth of the saying that:
"The abyss is worth a leap, however wide, When life, sweet life, is on the other side."
Whether it is a physician who gets his patient a night's rest, although he knows he is risking depression of the heart and may lose the battle, or whether it is a surgeon who does a desperate operation, he is fighting for life.
The same applies in chronic cases, and although specific instances have not been given, I venture to give your Lordships some which have occurred in recent years. Asthma has been mentioned, and the repeated fight for life when the patient is gasping for air. Yet within the last few years there has been, or there is about to be, put into our hands, or we have the promise of the gift of, something that can relieve the patient within a very short space of time. Rheumatoid arthritis was mentioned, and yet again, from the same source of research, there has been put into the hands of the medical profession a similar weapon which may relieve all those sufferers. If an idea of this sort were accepted, within a measurable distance of time the patients who are now capable of being relieved might have been quietly put away. Or take cancer. As noble Lords in this House, particularly

585
my noble friend, Lord Horder, know, cancer of the prostate is one of the most distressing and perhaps one of the most painful diseases from which men of mature years can suffer. Yet in many cases the whole of that suffering has been removed and life prolonged, sometimes for years, not by drastic treatment but by pills swallowed twice a day. If that man, with intense discomfort and in pain and regarded at the time of his diagnosis as inevitably bound to die within measurable time, had been condemned to death—because that is what it amounts to—it would have been a life thrown away. Within a few months this discovery might have led to at least the prolongation of his life, if not his complete recovery.
Reference has been made to the young. I believe the over twenty-ones were mentioned in the Bill which was before your Lordships' House fourteen years ago. But
"Life is a little matter,
And death is naught to the young."
wrote Stevenson. When I remember the way in which, in the 1914–18 war, the young subaltern sprang over the top, I think that is true. He did not think of death, nor did the young airman in the last war when he took his flight into the air. Stevenson also wrote:
"Life is dear to the aged."
Are we to contemplate the situation in the sick room which has been pointed out, where an elderly patient with a chronic illness looks round with suspicion and accepts every suggestion such as: "How can you bear all this?" or, "Don't you wish it was over?", as a suggestion that he should apply for the appropriate form and fill it in? I think it is dreadful that we should be asked to contemplate such a situation. Moreover, suppose quite clearly on his own initiative the patient put forward a request for release; is not to agree to that request legalising suicide? To my mind, it is. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, although the patient may apply for a form and sign it one day, he may wish to revoke it. What is his procedure then?
LORD HORDER: It is too late.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: It is too late. Reference has also been made to animals. Have any of your Lordships ever had to put a favourite dog to death? I have. I do not know to-day what the look in his
586
eye meant, whether it was gratitude or reproach. I should not like to see that look in the eye of a patient and not know whether it was gratitude or reproach. So I hope your Lordships will take such a determined view on this question that you will deter any of the protagonists from introducing a Bill in this House and forcing us to yet another debate on this painful subject.
"The labour we delight in physics pain,"
and that is the labour we wish to continue,
6.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is, as the noble Lord who has just sat down said, a painful subject, and I am sure it is with great reluctance that all those speaking on this subject to-night do so. In my own case, however, I speak from a sense of duty and of feeling, for although I respect very much the medical profession and their views, I think we have the right to voice the views of the patients also. Those who have had the misfortune to witness suffering of this kind will, I know, sympathise with the action of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in introducing this Motion. I feel sure that our natural instincts are mercy and compassion. As the noble Lord has said, if one sees the agony of an animal that cannot be cured, one's instinct is to help that animal out of its pain. I suggest to your Lordships that if we are confronted with the case of a person who is suffering agonising pain over a long period and whose disease has been diagnosed as utterly incurable, our real instinctive human feelings would be, "Let this person, if he so wishes, have a speedy release." I wish to emphasise that the Motion is in respect of voluntary euthanasia. It is not euthanasia for put-ting away people whom we do not like.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: You are ask-ing the medical profession to do it. Ask somebody else.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: As I say, I respect the reluctance of the medical profession to take on a new responsibility, but I think that in this particular case we have to consider the patient. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, asked about numbers. I cannot give him the number of incurable diseases in England, but I am told—I do not know whether the figure is reliable—that in the case of cancer patients it is something like

587
60,000. Lord Dawson of Penn said in his speech that he considered that in something under one half of that number was pain a major factor. That, of course, was an expression of opinion. I have puzzled over this question and, although it may be a natural reaction to be merciful, there must be very strong reasons indeed against such a course.
Some of those reasons we have heard mentioned this afternoon. In my view they come under four headings. The first is the religious objection which has been so ably put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, this afternoon. I should be the last person to enter into a theological controversy on this subject, but I should like just to stress two facts. In the first place, the noble Earl quoted from the Middle Ages, and said that the Saints were content to see pain and far worse conditions than we know now. But we have advanced from the Middle Ages, and the burning of witches, and the allowing of suffering of pain. Secondly, I would advance these two arguments. One is that there is a very large body of Christians who believe in euthanasia. The second is that there is a considerable body, though not so large, of ministers of religion who believe that Christian teaching would allow voluntary euthanasia. I ask your Lordships to remember that fact. But the real point I hope to make on this religious issue is that we are not asking any religious person now to practise euthanasia, or to persuade one's friends or families to do so. All we ask is toleration. Religion has fought for toleration in the past and we say only this: that it is merciful to release from pain, and we hope to regularise this step by a Bill in this House. I do not wish to stress the religious aspect, about which I can say very little. There are two other major aspects. One is the possibility of abuse, with which I can shortly deal, and which in the Bill of 1936 I think was fairly well covered. Actually, if you can somehow bribe or corrupt five different persons to help and aid you to commit a murder, there are certainly easier ways of doing that than by voluntary euthanasia. But still, even if there are not sufficient safeguards, if a Bill is introduced, again it will be easy for Parliament to add safeguards to make the position even more secure.
588
I come to the major points of discussion which we have to consider. The first is this. People have stressed, and very rightly stressed, the sanctity of life. It has been argued, and very pertinently argued, that if we consent to this voluntary euthanasia, which is a principle of allowing people to be despatched, then we open the door to much worse things; that before we know where we are we shall have a dictator putting away his enemies, putting them into gas chambers as Hitler did, getting rid of them in that sort of way. That is the argument: that it is the thin end of the wedge. In reply to that, I should like to say that practically every reform that has ever been introduced has been attacked as being the thin end of the wedge. But, apart from that, if a Hitler, or some other dictator, ever came to this country, a man who has probably waded through bloodshed and violence, and who holds down the country with an army of secret police, does anybody seriously consider that he would be stopped from doing away with his enemies because we had or had not practised voluntary euthanasia? If we consider the implications of that argument, your Lordships will see that it is not one which we need take very seriously.
There is another argument to be considered in respect of the medical profession. I see their point of view. This is really the crux of the logical opposition to voluntary euthanasia. That argument is that it would breed distrust, that it might destroy the confidence of the patient in the doctor, that it might bring into the sick room an atmosphere of further anxiety, a painful atmosphere of distrust and almost a fear of the doctor, and that at any cost this must be prevented. I think that is a good argument but I want to examine it a little more closely for a moment. One must remember that under the proposed Bill—I think this is very important—the doctor is never the arbiter. The doctor does not say: "This man must be put away." It is the patient who is always the arbiter. It is the patient who has to insist that his suffering is incurable, and that the only possible way of release is by some hypodermic injection or otherwise.
All the doctor has to do—though it is an immense responsibility—is to say that in his opinion a particular disease is incurable at the present time and that the

589
pain is agonising. It is true that his opinion has to be certified by another doctor and a referee, to see that the whole case is in order but there is no arbiter. The doctor does not have to come and put away the patient. Personally, I think the noble Lord, Lord Horder, used some very moving words—I hope I am quoting him correctly—when he said that the patient says "Stand by me." I do not know what your Lordships feel, but I should feel very much more sympathetic and affectionate, if I may use the word, towards a doctor who I felt was not only trying to cure me and to relieve my pain but would, in the last extreme, when the disease was incurable and the pain insufferable, even go one step further and help me with an easy way out. That man I would take to my heart.
I think we have to look at the other side. it is true that there may be cases where the atmosphere in the sick room is worsened by a feeling of uncertainty on the part of the patient. It is possible. There may be relations who will try surreptitiously to influence the incurable case to apply for euthanasia. It might happen. Personally, I think that some of your Lordships have taken a rather jaundiced view. It has rather been suggested in the debate that that would be much more frequent than actually would happen. I do not think that people on the whole are as brutal and horrible as that. One must weigh up against that possibility, too, the immense good, and the immense relief from suffering in so many thousands of cases, that would come out of some means of euthanasia. I believe that that relief far outweighs the possibility that there might be a few cases where added mental anxiety was caused.
The last point that I believe the medical profession should consider very carefully indeed is the position of the doctor to-day. Some people have suggested that when doctors see hopeless cases they do, if I may use the word, surreptitiously add to the dose too much morphia or whatever it may be, and so shorten the patient's life. If they do, I should be the last person to criticise them. But I think it is an intolerable position for the doctor. By doing this, by letting his emotions, his natural feelings of mercy and pity, come into operation, he puts himself into the position of being a murderer, of possibly being tried by the courts, of losing his
590
livelihood and, of course, that of his whole family. What a risk that wretched man is taking in order to alleviate the suffering of a patient! I think that is the biggest point in favour of the Bill. It would relieve the doctor of what I should have thought is a terrible dilemma.
But far from its happening now, my personal complaint is that it does not happen. I know of at least three cases concerning poor people—admittedly they were in the country, and perhaps that made more difficulties—who for months and months suffered the most agonising pain through not having enough drugs. In one case there were enough drugs, but little by little the action of the drugs became less effective. These people were crying out for some alleviation, for merciful release, and they were not given that release. I think one could multiply those instances not merely by hundreds but by thousands. I do not want to keep your Lordships longer to-night. We have listened to a most interesting debate, and we have the Government reply to follow. Finally, I should like to wind up by saying: Please remember that we, the promoters of this Motion and those who support it, are not asking your Lordships to decide whether a person shall live or die. What we are asking is whether that death shall be more speedy or more protracted and painful. I appeal merely for toleration — "Blessed are the merciful."
6.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I believe that the most important point of this matter has not been adequately brought out in this debate, although it has been alluded to. That point is the absolute value of human life. I was most impressed by a speech which was made by Lord Templewood at the time of the debate on capital punishment. As Home Secretary, he had been in favour of capital punishment, and I remember that in his speech he told us how he came to be converted to the other view. He had spent a period in Spain and had considered carefully what was the political difference in point of view between him-self, as a British Conservative, and the Fascists that he found around him. He said that he came to the conclusion that the real difference was the value that he put on the individual and on human life. I was most impressed by that statement.

591
As a member of the Labour Party, I should like to state that that is exactly my view also. I believe that the ultimate difference between myself, and my Labour Party colleagues in general, and Communism, is that we put a much higher value upon the individual than they do. The ultimate ditch that lies between democracy and the totalitarian of various hue is just this point of the utter value of the individual human and of human life.
One speech was made from the opposite side of the House with which I very much agree. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said, I believe, that he thought there were exceptions to the rule "Thou shalt not kill"—namely, the judge and the soldier: and that it was a case of the exception proving the rule. That I
believe to be an entirely accurate statement of the case. There is. to my mind, only one case in which one may legitimately kill a human being or hazard his life, and that is for the purpose of saving other human life. It is for that reason that I am not a pacifist. If we bow down and let the evil men of the world trample over us we do not save human life, we lose more. When I say "human life" I do not mean merely human existence in slavery, but something broader, more valuable and more dignified than that. It is because I believe in the importance of human life in that broader sense that I rise to speak to-day. After all, in condemning a man to death the judge does so because the man has killed another. At the time of the debate on capital punishment I opposed capital punishment because I believed that the figures showed that if you abolish capital punishment you do not, in fact, lose more human lives. Other noble Lords took the opposite view; they believed that if capital punishment were abolished we should lose more human lives. Both sides, however, believed this: that there is an ultimate value in human life. That was what the whole debate was about.
In my opinion, noble Lords who, out of the generosity of their hearts and because they loathe seeing suffering, are supporting this Motion are mistaken in their belief. It is terribly difficult to tell whether or not a human being is suffering. I have seen human beings suffer and die. and at the time I have thought
592
them to be in considerable pain. On one occasion I remarked on the fact to a doctor, but he assured me that the patient who was groaning and moaning was in fact unconscious. I believe that the statements—I will not say "statistics," because no statistics have been produced—that thousands of people would benefit from this supposed reform, are much exaggerated. If we let such a thing as this euthanasia proposal be-come law, we would open a door to a crooked argument which would be used by those unbalanced people who commit murder. Basically the murderer is unbalanced, in that he believes that he and his are more valuable than his neighbour and the property of his neighbour. He believes that he has a right to kill his neighbour because his neighbour is in some way inconvenient to him, the murderer. The murderer will say: "There are people in this country who are entitled to pass judgment upon whether some other human being should live or die. Therefore, I am entitled, for good cause, as I see it, to pass judgment on some other human being." The argument is crooked, I admit, and not one which any rational man should hold. But it will be held. If
this thing should come into law. it would promote a basic feeling which would strike at the very structure of our civilisation—that men are not so valuable; that they are less valuable than the State, perhaps; or, generally, less valuable than anything else one may consider valuable at the time. It is because I insist—and I think that we here should insist—that man is really the most valuable thing with which we have to deal, that I beg your Lord-ships not to side with those who have moved and supported this Motion.
7.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VIS-COUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will agree that this discussion has been a very interesting one, and quite up to the traditions of this House. At this late hour of the night I shall not attempt to detain your Lordships for any length of time. I ought, however, to tell your Lordships what the attitude of the Government is with regard to this matter. I can best do so, I think, by telling you that I shall advise your Lordships, if this goes to a Division, to vote against the Motion. It is, of course, open to any noble Lord to introduce a

593
Bill, with the appropriate safeguards; and if he chooses to do so, we shall have to consider that Bill. But this is a mere abstract proposition, without any safeguards or, indeed, any Bill at all. It is something which no Government could possibly support.
I believe that I could speak for all my colleagues in saying what follows, but I am conscious of the fact that at least I can speak for myself. I appreciate, of course, the fact that those who have brought this matter forward sincerely believe what they have advocated. It has been discussed from the religious point of view and from the medical point of view. I shall offer a few words to your Lord-ships from the legal point of view. I believe, from that point of view, that the consequences of our passing any Bill like the one which has been
discussed would be most grave and most serious. From the medical point of view, those of us who had the privilege of listening to the doctors amongst us speaking to-day have heard put forward what they wish to say. Before to-day's debate I read the report of the debate we had in 1936, and I was deeply impressed by the speech which Lord Horder made then, just as I was by his speech to-day. I was also impressed by the speech of Lord Dawson of Penn.
I should like to quote to your Lord-ships just a sentence or two from those speeches. They put the matter, I think, very neatly. Lord Horder said this—it is the substance of what he has said to-day, and I take this sentence only:
"Be it observed that the good doctor surely makes a distinction between prolonging life and prolonging the act of dying."
Lord Dawson of Penn put it in this way:
"There has gradually crept into medical opinion, as there has crept into lay opinion, the feeling that one should make the act of dying more gentle and more peaceful even if it does involve curtailment of the length of life."
Then he explained what he meant by that:
"I read that it is lawful to use drugs to alleviate pain, even though it be foreseen that these may shorten life, provided that the alleviation of pain and not the shortening of life is the primary purpose of the drug."
That seems to me to be the real distinction.
That exposition of the views of the two noble Lords who spoke to us on the last occasion, reinforced as they have been
594
by noble Lords who speak with great authority on this matter to-day, leads me to suggest that that is the right solution. If that is so, is it not plain that you are dealing with something, if I may again quote Lord Dawson of Penn:
"which belongs to the wisdom and conscience of the medical profession and not to the realm of law."
I remember so well how, after prosecuting in a case at the Old Bailey—it was a case which attracted a great deal of attention, and it concerned accounts and accountancy—some members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants came to me (I was Attorney-General at the time) and asked me to formulate principles and rules upon which an auditor should act in giving approval to, or withholding approval from, the accounts of a company. I recall saying: "You might just as well ask me to define what is conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman. One cannot define it; it is not a matter which can be formulated in strict rules." Surely, if we accept the principle—the general principle which I have quoted— as being the medical ethic, we must leave to the conscience of the medical profession the carrying out of those principles in accordance with the traditions of what is perhaps the most noble profession of all.
I confess, too, that I agree entirely, from the religious point of view, with the very fine speech—as I thought it—made by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York. I do believe in the sanctity of human life, and it seems to me utterly irrelevant to compare this question with the question of the attitude you take to your horse or your dog. That was a matter to which Lord Chorley referred. Of course, if we have a horse or a dog suffering as the result of some dreadful accident we get someone to put that unhappy animal out of pain. But what relevance has that to what we are considering now? Surely, the whole distinction is that you are dealing here with human life—and I think nearly everyone believes in the sanctity of human life. You cannot, surely, treat humans on the same basis as you would treat an animal. Lord Chorley rightly said that an animal could not, of course, give his consent. Does he not realise that the very arguments he used are arguments which tell much more powerfully in favour of exterminating idiots and people of that sort, than they

595
bear upon the question of euthanasia? We have all seen what dreadful consequences spring from that doctrine. We have seen the thin end of the wedge introduced under Hitler; we have seen centres where killings took place, centres which started by being places where idiots were put away, and which finally became places where people who were political undesirables were put away. Most of us here, no doubt, would have qualified for that.
There is another aspect of this matter about which, perhaps, I can speak with some little authority. If you are going to depart from this doctrine of the sanctity of human life, if you are going to allow someone to fill up a form and then by going around to a euthanasia referee get the form approved and signed up, what will the consequences be on the public conscience? In the courts to-day we sometimes have cases of mercy killings. If we place such a Bill as this on
the Statute Book. I can see that this will be the defence in future: "I am very sorry: I made a mistake about this. I did not get the right form, so I knocked the old lady on the head." Once you accept the doctrine that there is not some-thing sacred about human life, and that you can go and get a form filled up by a patient. I can imagine what the situation will be like. You will see the official —I suppose he would be a doctor, but he would not be a very good doctor, because no good doctor would do it—tripping along with his bowler hat. and little brown bag to get the man to sign the form. And from what I know of human nature, in not a few cases the unfortunate person will be pressed to sign the form. And there you have the whole thing.
I believe that this doctrine of putting people out of what is called their misery, for what are thought to be good reasons, may have very serious repercussions on the criminal law of this land. What are the conditions which
were suggested in the last Bill as being necessary? They are incurable disease, great pain, soundness of mind. All these are relative. We cannot be certain of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Horder, tells us, a disease which fourteen years ago might have been regarded by doctors as incurable may be curable to-day. Great pain—how can we diagnose that? To what extent is there proof of great pain? And soundness of
596
mind?—in a case of this sort generally the state of mind alternates. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Horder, said today it alternated between morning and evening, and changed rapidly throughout the course of the day. None of these things can be asserted, and I ask your Lordships to say that the introduction of a Bill would be wrong, no matter what the safeguards might be, because there can be no adequate safeguards where one human being is allowed to start killing another.
There must be no failure to apprehend the truth. Such a Bill would allow murder in certain circumstances; and the confines within which it is allowed can never be so clearly defined that we may not have people stepping outside them. The only safe test to make is this: that it is for the doctors to alleviate pain and suffering, and, following Lord Dawson's doctrine, I apprehend that they do so, even though it means a slight shortening of life, because they look at the quality and not merely at the quantity of life; and that once we depart from that we are on the slippery slope. I hope that I shall never live to see a system of euthanasia introduced into this country.
7.15 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, at this late hour I am sure your Lordships will not expect me to deal with all the points made in this interesting debate. My Motion has at any rate brought a number of interesting speeches from almost all the medical members in your Lordships' House, and, if I have done nothing else, I am sure I have rendered your Lordships a service in bringing those noble Lords here this afternoon. Some of them, like the noble Lord, Lord Uvedale, we have seldom the pleasure of hearing, and I hope that after making such an interesting speech this afternoon the noble Lord will feel emboldened to come more often. He was the only one of the medical members of the House who gave me a crumb of comfort. One might perhaps have expected the medical Peers would be a good deal more conservative than other doctors, and it is the undoubted fact that there are over 200 eminent members of the medical profession who are strong supporters of these proposals.
LORD HORDER: My Lords, may I interpolate that I sit on the Cross Benches?
LORD CHORLEY: I do not propose to go into all the points in detail, but I should like to deal with one or two matters. The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, referred to the resolution of the
World Medical Association. I think he ought to have pointed out to your Lord-ships that the resolution was not in any sense on all fours with what I have been suggesting this afternoon. The resolution was against the sort of thing practised in Germany and not against voluntary euthanasia, with safeguards as proposed. It was against just the sort of killing by doctors according to their discretion that the Bill put forward by this movement is directed. In any case, the two representatives of this country on the Association voted against the resolution.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the resolution was directed equally against the course which the noble Lord is advocating.
LORD CHORLEY: I have the terms of the resolution here. There is nothing in it at all about it being voluntary and nothing at all about safeguards. It is perfectly obvious to anyone who has looked at it that what the doctors were trying to prevent was that it should be left completely to the discretion of the doctor. We who are advocating this have always taken the view that it is wrong that the burden should be placed on the doctor. Both those in favour and those
598
who are against are equally animated with the conception of the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of human personality, but we derive different conclusions from the same premises. It is because we who support this proposal feel that human life is so sacred, and human personality, even above life itself, is so sacred, that we say that there ought to be this means of relief, in order that it may be made more reverend, more sacred, than it can be when a person is suffering from a horrible agony which frequently finishes life. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, may say, I do not think there are many doctors who have not seen a human being finishing his life in great pain. It is because of that that I brought this Motion before your Lordships this afternoon. I am sorry to hear that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack is so unsympathetic. I thought he might have come a little way in the direction of his distinguished predecessor, whose opinion, I maintain, in spite of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, was in favour of the practice he described so sympathetically. In view of the circumstances, I do not propose to divide the House, and I ask your Lordships' permission to with-draw ray Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, with-drawn.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past seven o'clock.