Sitting of 13 February 1951

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o' Clock
RPAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Colonial Office (Building Plans)
    Mr. Hollisasked the Minister of Works what revision of the new Colonial Office building plans is contemplated.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Stokes): I am considering the possibility of revising the plans, and will announce the decision as soon as it has been reached.
    Mr. Hollis: If I put down another Question in the near future, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement?
    Mr. Stokes: I hope to be able to make a statement, perhaps, next week.

    Water Taps
    Mr. Marplesasked the Minister of Works how much more metal is used in the British Waterworks Association's Standard tap, BS 1010, than in the Ministry of Health's Swan tap; what taps are now being used in the home market; and what taps are being exported.
    Mr. Stokes: Taps produced by different makers vary slightly in weight, but on the average the ½ inch B.S. 1010 tap is about 1½ ozs. heavier than the Ministry of Health's Swan tap, and the ¾ inch B.S. 1010 tap is about 2 ozs. heavier than the Ministry of Health pattern. Both B.S. 1010 and Ministry of Health taps are used at home and are exported.
    Mr. Marples: Yes, but does not the Swan tap use very much less material, relatively speaking, than the other tap, and why is it not used more extensively in the home market at this time of shortage of materials?
    Mr. Stokes: Arrangements are being made to specify it so far as possible, but
    172
    it takes time. But progress is being made in this direction.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Is this a case of a new standard being forced on the industry partly by the Ministry of Health and partly by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Do I understand that it is definitely the Government's intention to go back to the Ministry of Health tap which was used in the last war to economise in the use of metal?
    Mr. Stokes: No; not entirely so.

    Foreign Office (New Buildings)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Works why additional buildings for the Foreign Office are to be constructed.
    Mr. Stokes: The existing building in Downing Street, which was adequate for the purpose of the Foreign Office in 1868, when the staff was approximately 150, and the annual intake of despatches was 26,000, is not adequate now when the staff is approximately 2,500, and the annual intake of despatches is 569,000. The Foreign Office is at present accommodated in six buildings, and this makes the conduct of business difficult.
    Sir H. Williams: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the more despatches despatched, the greater the risk of war?
    Mr. Stokes: No. This is an intake of despatches.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the space for the Foreign Office would be greatly increased if fewer despatches came in and more time were given to their consideration?
    Mr. Stokes: It is rather difficult to refuse to receive them.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend to his colleagues at the Foreign Office that they should take over the enormous building at present occupied by the Ministry of Civil Aviation?

    Building Licences, Scotland
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Works the total value of private building works authorised by his Department in Scotland during 1950.
    Mr. Stokes: The total value of private building work licensed by my Department in Scotland during 1950 was £18,718,000. This figure includes work to industrial, commercial and agricultural buildings.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a large body of opinion in Scotland which thinks that the work authorised has been excessive and has had an adverse effect on housing output? Could he sub-divide the figures into cinemas, offices, and buildings of that kind?
    Mr. Stokes: I do not think there are any cinemas at all, but I will look it up if my hon. Friend wants to know. Of the £18 million, £12 million is for sponsored work asked for by other Departments, and about £5 million is for maintenance.
    Mr. McInnes: Since the figure which my right hon. Friend gives for 1950 reveals no diminution compared with that for 1949, will he undertake, in view of the shortage of building materials in Scotland, to impose a restriction on this semi-luxury building?
    Mr. Stokes: I do not think that any of it could be called semi-luxury. We have very close control on all this, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I keep a constant eye on it.
    Sir H. Williams: How many despatches have been received in this connection?
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Works what safeguards are taken by his Department in Scotland to ensure that the amount for which a building licence is granted by his Department is not exceeded.
    Mr. Stokes: Any complaints of irregularity are investigated, and there are limited arrangements for inspecting work in progress.
    Mr. Manuel: In connection with the inspection arrangements, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us representing constituencies in Scotland are receiving complaints about work not being inspected, and about people doing just what they like after they have got licences? Could I have some information as to what method of review there is, once work is authorised?
    Mr. Stokes: I cannot give that, but I can assure my hon. Friend that a licensing officer satisfies himself, before a licence is granted, that the work can be carried out within the licence figure. I am not prepared to engage an army of snoopers to go around.
    Mr. William Ross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Glasgow there is a considerable increase of spending on luxury redecoration authorised by his Department?
    Mr. Stokes: If my hon. Friend will bring any particular case to my notice, I will gladly have it looked into.
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Works the number of prosecutions initiated by his Department in Scotland in connection with building activities where the interest concerned has exceeded the sum authorised by the building licence granted by his Department.
    Mr. Stokes: There have been nine such prosecutions in Scotland in the last two years.
    Mr. Manuel: What is the number of alleged infringements that have been reported to the Department, and how many prosecutions have been successful out of the number initiated by the Department?
    Mr. Stokes: I could not say anything about alleged infringements. In all there were 30 cases in which proceedings were taken, in 21 of which the free limit had been exceeded.

    Westminster Hospital Site (New Offices)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Works what proposition was put before the Royal Fine Art Commission that a definite floor area was indispensable for the new offices with regard to the Westminster Hospital site.
    Mr. Stokes: The Royal Fine Art Commission was informed that the architect's plans only just met the requirements of the Colonial Office.
    Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister recognise that they were given information which made it impossible for them to make modifications, with the result that there will be a building there which

    175
    will dominate Westminster Abbey, to the great detriment of this part of London?
    Mr. Stokes: I think it would be best if the hon. Gentleman awaited the statement I hope to make next week.
    Mr. Bossom: Will the Minister publish the exact information given to the Royal Fine Art Commission on this point?
    Mr. Stokes: I will consider it, but I cannot promise.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the statement the Minister is going to make be the final word on this matter, or will it be open to discussion after he has made his statement.
    Mr. Stokes: It will be as final as anything is final.

    Building Workers, Edinburgh
    Sir William Darlingasked the Minister of Works the registered number of building workers in Edinburgh; and what proportion of these were working in Edinburgh, and what proportion were registered in Edinburgh, but resident and working elsewhere, respectively.
    Mr. Stokes: On 15th May, 1950, the latest date for which figures are available, the total number of building workers employed by contractors with business addresses in Edinburgh was 15,113, of which it is estimated that about 8,000 were working in Edinburgh. I have no information as to the place of residence of the remainder, but many of them were employed on hydro-electric and other large schemes scattered over Scotland and would be engaged locally.
    Sir W. Darling: Is the Minister aware that the figure of 15,000 gives the impression that in Edinburgh they are not using the full amount of building labour available, and that the present system of registration misleads the public, as apparently 7,000 of those registered workers are employed outside the city.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

    Members' Lobby (Chandeliers)
    Mr. Henry Hopkinsonasked the Minister of Works if he will consider installing in the Members' Lobby the five
    176
    brass chandeliers, originally in Sir Christopher Wren's 18th Century House of Commons and acquired by his Department in 1946, in place of the five existing fluorescent lights.
    Mr. Stokes: The chandeliers which are believed to have hung in the temporary House of Commons fitted up after the tire of 1834 cannot be adapted for the fluorescent lighting used in the Members' Lobby. I propose to hang three of the chandeliers on the staircase leading from the Lower to the Upper Waiting Halls. One is already temporarily in suspension.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Everyone in the House appreciates the interest the Minister takes in these questions and the action which he is already thinking of taking in regard to these chandeliers, but does he not realise that at the moment the fluorescent lights in the Members' Lobby are so bright that there cannot be more than two on at a time, and would it not be worth while considering putting in the more old-fashioned types of lighting instead?
    Mr. Stokes: No, that is not the case. The reason only two are lighted is in the interests of fuel economy. I know that there is criticism of the fluorescent lights, but it would be quite impracticable to change them to the old candelabra; they just would not work at all. If the fluorescent lighting were changed, it would cost a very considerable sum of money, and it would have to be reviewed.
    Mr. Snow: Apart from the practical consideration of saving fuel, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no great difference between neo-Gothic fluorescent lighting and electrically equipped 17th Century chandeliers?
    Mr. Stokes: My hon. Friend had better try that one on the architect.
    Mr. York: Is the right hon. Gentleman still absolutely convinced that it is pleasant to sit under this beastly fluorescent lighting? Would not something in the nature of chandeliers be very much more easy on the eye?
    Mr. Stokes: That really has nothing to do with this Question. Before the new Chamber was opened, I had the lights completely changed round so as to improve the colour, and I think we had much better endure this a little longer and see how we get on.

    Electricity Consumption
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Works the number of units of electricity consumed in the Palace of Westminster during the two weeks ended 3rd February.
    Mr. Stokes: Information on electricity consumption at the Palace of Westminster is only available for periods of a month. No information for February is yet available. The consumption for the month ending 27th January, 1951, was 141,274 units.
    Sir H. Williams: Do I understand from that reply that nobody is capable of reading a meter in this building?
    Mr. Stokes: No, Sir. The routine arrangement is that the meter is read once a month.
    Sir H. Williams: Why could not they do it once a fortnight? I want to know what is consumed when we are sitting.
    Mr. Stokes: It is quite absurd to suggest that we should alter the routine every time a Question is asked.
    Sir H. Williams: It is a matter of two minutes' work.
    Mr. John Tilney: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that less electricity might be consumed if the windows were cleaner?

    Westminster Hall
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the Minister of Works if he will arrange to leave the Lion and the Unicorn statues in the Westminster Hall in their present position.
    Mr. Stokes: No, Sir. As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain MacLeod), on 6th February, it is proposed to remove the Lion and the Unicorn this month when the curtain in Westminster Hall is taken down.
    Wing Commander Bullus: What is to take the place of the present statues?
    Mr. Kirkwood: The Stone of Scone.
    Mr. Stokes: Nothing. The figures were made for a particular celebration, and they are not of a durable character. If it were desired to put up durable statues, they would have to be in stone and would take some time to make.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Will the Minister consider replacing them with permanent stone figures?
    Mr. Stokes: Yes, if there were really considerable feeling in favour of it.

    Festival of Britain (Exhibition)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Works what steps are being taken to make known to the people who will visit the Festival, particularly those from abroad, the principles of our Parliamentary institutions, by the display of models and the sale of literature in or near the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Stokes: As announced by you, Sir, on 21st November, 1950, an exhibition describing the history and functions of Parliament is to be held in the Grand Committee Room during the Summer Recess. Arrangements for the sale of literature throughout the period of the Festival are under consideration.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister satisfied that the exhibition in the Grand Committee Room will meet the requirements of the large number of people who are coming to this country and who will take an interest in our Parliamentary institutions?
    Mr. Stokes: Yes, I think so. It is the best we can do, anyway. The alternative was Westminster Hall, which I resisted because I think it desirable that Westminster Hall should be kept empty.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister considering establishing a literature stall so that people can buy literature dealing with our Parliamentary institutions?
    Mr. Stokes: I thought I made that clear in my reply. That is under consideration. It is a question of making detailed arrangements.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Foreign Workers (Cotton Industry)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Labour how many European volunteer workers are engaged in the Lancashire cotton textile industry; and how many have sought permission to return home.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): The number at present employed in this

    179
    industry is not available but approximately 9,000 have been recruited. This includes 1,200 Austrians and Italians who came on a temporary two-year engagement of whom about 250 have gone home. Permission to return home is not needed.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that these people are being absorbed into the Lancashire cotton towns without difficulty; and is it intended to bring more of these voluntary workers into the Lancashire cotton towns?
    Mr. Lee: There may well be small instances of difficulty in this sort of thing, but I have not heard of any difficulty of any size in the absorption of these people. I do not know that there is at the moment any question of bringing more in.
    Mr. McCorquodale: Is it not a fact that these people have done admirable work?
    Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir.

    Restrictive Practices
    Mr. Maudlingasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received the report of the sub-committee of the National Joint Advisory Council, which was set up in April, 1949, to examine restrictive practices in industry.
    Mr. Lee: This question was discussed at the recent meeting of the National Joint Advisory Council on 31st January, when it was agreed that in the present critical conditions it would be preferable for each industry to examine what could be done in the circumstances of that industry to increase productivity to the full and to remove any obstacles to full production. This new positive approach to the question has the support of both sides of industry, and I am confident that it will prove to be the most effective way of tackling the problem.
    Mr. Maudling: Is the Minister aware that it is now nearly two years since the Lord President of the Council promised the House that a full investigation would be made into this question, and can the House be given fuller information about this?
    Mr. Lee: It is not a question of a Government inquiry. It is a question for both sides of the National Joint Advisory Council and there has been no attempt by the Government to stop it. There are difficulties, and both sides are co-operating very well to try to overcome them.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: Does the information at the Minister's disposal enable him to state whether Luddite practices are increasing or diminishing?
    Mr. Lee: I think that they diminished long ago.

    Metal-Working Industries (Hours)
    Mr. Maudlingasked the Minister of Labour what were the average hours worked per week in the metal-working industries in April, 1945, and at the latest available date.
    Mr. Lee: The average number of hours worked in the metal, vehicles, engineering and shipbuilding industries by manual wage-earners covered by returns received by the Ministry of Labour and National Service was 47.2 in the last pay-week of January, 1945, 47.5 in the last pay-week of July, 1945, and 45.8 in the last pay-week of April, 1950. Information is not yet available for any later date.

    Order 1305 (Reports)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Minister of Labour how many times Order 1305 has been invoked against employers and employees respectively.
    Mr. Lee: From the inception of the Order in July, 1940, up to 7th February, 1951, there were 4,029 reports made under the Order by or on behalf of workers; 97 were made by or on behalf of employers, and 16 were made jointly by employers and workers.

    Irish Building Workers
    Mr. Reader Harrisasked the Minister of Labour what is the amount of subsistence allowances, and any other grants, made to building labourers from Ireland.
    Mr. Lee: No such allowances are payable by my Department as this matter is covered by an industrial agreement within the industry.

    London Docks (Committee's Report)
    Mr. Heathcoat Amoryasked the Minister of Labour whether the committee which was set up last year to investigate conditions in the London Docks has yet reported; and whether it is his intention to publish the report.
    Mr. Lee: I am informed by the Chairman of the Committee that the report will be available early next month. The report will be published.
    Mr. Amory: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be something badly wrong with labour relations in this industry, and that if this Committee can open the way to an improvement of these relations, this report will be very welcome to the whole nation?
    Mr. Lee: I am quite sure that the report will be very welcome.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: Is it intended to set up a similar committee to make a report on other disputes?
    Mr. Lee: That is another question.

    Electricity Load-spreading (Report)
    Mr. Redmayneasked the Minister of Labour if he will publish the report on fuel economy submitted to him by the Electricity Sub-Committee of the National Joint Advisory Council.
    Mr. Lee: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the Sub-Committee's report on electricity load-spreading. This document was not printed, but I am sending a copy of it to the hon. Member and am placing copies in the Library.

    Older Persons
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to enable unemployed persons over 50 to have greater opportunity of employment in both public and private service.
    Mr. Lee: I and my Department are with the full support of the National Joint Advisory Council, taking every opportunity to urge the employment of older workers as far as possible. So far as the Government service is concerned, there is no age limit of 50, and workers over that age who are suitable are accepted.
    Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that at the age of 65 all established civil servants are forced to retire, and does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time has come, in view of the ageing population, when this antiquated practice should be reviewed?
    Mr. Lee: We have an Adjournment debate on this subject tonight, and we shall value the opinions of the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir H. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question?
    Captain Ryder: Is it not a fact that when civil servants retire on pension they are restricted in the amount which they are permitted to earn, which discourages them from taking other employment, and will the Parliamentary Secretary consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter?
    Mr. Lee: I gave a full answer in the Adjournment debate on 19th July last on the question of employees in Government service, and I think that if the hon. and gallant Member will look at the report of the debate, he will find that the Government's record compares very favourably indeed with that of private industry.

    Boilermakers' Dispute, Bristol
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the total amount involved in the strike of boilermakers in Bristol, who have been out for a month, is only £4 2s. 6d.; and if he will make a further attempt to settle this dispute.
    Mr. Lee: I am informed that one of the two questions in dispute has now been resolved and that agreement has been reached between the parties to discuss the outstanding question immediately work has been resumed. It is hoped that work will be resumed tomorrow.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the secondary cause of the dispute was the refusal of the men to use a ladder which did not conform with the regulations, and will he see that in future an inspector is there to ensure that the regulations are carried out? Is he further aware that during the month the men have lost £1,600 wages as a result of this strike?
    Mr. Lee: I do not want to comment now on this particular dispute. I think that we are nearing the end of the dispute. I hope that it will end tomorrow.

    Territorials (Holidays)
    Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will introduce legislation to extend to all Territorial Army personnel the Government's proposals with regard to reinstatement in civil employment and holiday with pay.
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now consider taking steps to ensure that no Territorial soldier is made by his employer to count periods spent at camp against his normal holiday.
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Minister of Labour whether he will ensure that the same protection as to paid holidays is given to all who attend 15 days camp with Territorial Army units this year whether they are volunteers, National Service men or Class Z Reservists.
    Mr. Lee: There is at present nothing to add to the answer to a similar Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), on 6th February.
    Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is that the benefits and privileges which are granted to conscripts are being denied to those who volunteer to serve their country?
    Mr. Lee: I should have thought that the answer was obvious. When a person volunteers, it is difficult to ask an employer to continue to give certain benefits. On the other hand, the whole question is under discussion at the moment, and I hope that hon. Members will not press for an answer now.
    Mr. Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is a difficulty which could quite well be surmounted, and does he not think that this is imposing on the goodwill and loyalty of volunteers who are supporting the Government's present scheme for re-armament?
    Mr. Lee: No, Sir. I do not think that we are imposing upon them at all.
    Mr. Low: Does the Minister not know that the Territorial Army are trying to do all that they can to get Class Z persons to volunteer, and is not this refusal of his Department obstructing the policy of the War Office? Cannot he get together with the War Office and devise a suitable plan?
    Mr. Lee: I am not aware that I have refused anything.
    Mr. Nally: Does not the difficulty, quite rightly raised by hon. Members opposite, give an opportunity to employers to demonstrate their patriotism by providing for volunteers exactly the same conditions as are provided for conscripts?
    Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that if the Government do not settle these points quickly when they arise, this will have a most serious effect on the volunteer effort in this country?
    Mr. Harvey: In view of the unsympathetic reply, I beg to give notice I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Engineering Industry (Dilution)
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Minister of Labour what consideration has been given to the further dilution of skilled labour in engineering in view of the re-armament programme.
    Mr. Lee: At a recent meeting, the National Joint Advisory Council agreed that schemes of training, upgrading and dilution should be developed by different industries in order to overcome the scarcity of skilled workers. So far as the engineering industry is concerned, existing agreements already provide for dilution, and the amount of it can be extended as the need arises.
    Mr. Macpherson: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there are many men who have acquired considerable skill over a period of years and are still regarded as dilutees, and would it not be worth while to clear up that matter first before considering taking on further persons?
    Mr. Lee: That is a matter entirely between the trade unions and the employers concerned.

    Private Employment Agencies
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the number of cases of fraud perpetrated on ex-Service men and women, he has considered the advisability of introducing a system of licences for private employment agencies; and, if not, what action he proposes to take to safeguard the interests of those who are seeking employment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to control, by a system of licensing or otherwise, the activities of private employment agencies charging exorbitant fees or commission.
    Mr. Lee: Many local authorities already have powers under local Acts to control by licence the activities of private employment agencies. The question whether further powers should be sought is under consideration. Meanwhile, persons seeking employment can best safeguard their own interests by using the free services provided by the employment exchanges.
    Colonel Ropner: Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to whether these frauds are as commonplace as appears to be thought in many quarters?
    Mr. Lee: I know there are some, but I am afraid I could not give any definite number.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the time for bringing to an end this undesirable form of private enterprise is long overdue?
    Sir W. Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department has been in existence for 40 years organising employment and unemployment, and that private persons still prefer to go to these private agencies?
    Mr. Lee: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's question is misleading or not, but during the time of this Government they have been organising employment.

    House Workers (Training)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Minister of Labour the number of students who have completed their training in the four years since the National Institute of House Workers was set up.
    Mr. Lee: Seven hundred and eleven.
    Mr. Cooper: Since the cost involved, as I understand, is nearly half a million pounds, could my hon. Friend say what the Government's policy is in regard to the future of this Institute; and could he also say whether these women take the training to go into domestic work or to increase their matrimonial prospects?
    Mr. Lee: I should have thought that the service was doing admirable work indeed, and if my hon. Friend looks at the very fine results obtained, I think he will agree that it was well worth while.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the expenditure of half a million pounds to train 700 people works out at something of the order of £700 per person trained? Is that economy?
    Mr. Lee: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will offset against that the very great benefit that is done to the people employing these girls and to the girls themselves.
    Miss Jennie Lee: I hope my hon. Friend will keep in mind how very important it is not to have household work made into casual labour, and how very important indeed is the work done by this Institute.

    Railwaymen
    Mr. Marloweasked the Minister of Labour what information he has been able to obtain from the regional and local offices of his Department on the future trend of employment among railwaymen as a result of the cuts in train services; and what steps he is taking to provide other employment for them.
    Mr. Lee: I have had no information from the regional and local offices of my Department reporting an unfavourable trend of employment among railwaymen.
    Mr. Marlowe: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report that the train services are being cut, and has he called for any information from the branch offices with regard to this? Secondly, will he tell the House whether he agrees with the estimate of his hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. R. Mackay), that there are already 90,000 men redundant on British Railways? Does he agree with that estimate or not?
    Mr. Lee: I would rather take the word of the Railway Executive on the question of those people who are redundant.
    Mr. Poole: Does the Minister agree that this is a matter which can well be taken care of by the trade unions catering for the industry, and would it not be well to leave it to them?
    Mr. Lee: Yes, I think it is a question to be decided between the trade unions and the industry.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is the Minister aware that recently 30 men were stood-off at Lancing railway works and that another 16 followed?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is giving information rather than asking for it.

    INDEX OF RETAIL PRICES
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Labour what weight is given in the cost-of-living index to butcher's meat, cooked ham, poultry and rabbit, respectively.
    Mr. Lee: In the Interim Index of Retail Prices beef, mutton and lamb carry a weight of 37 out of a total of 1,000 for all items. Expenditure on all other meat (excluding bacon and ham), carries a weight of 23 out of 1,000. To represent the wide range of meat products covered by this group, the prices of seven items, each having the same weight, are taken. Two of these items relate to pork and one to rabbits. Cooked ham and poultry are not included in the list of items for which prices are obtained in compiling the index.
    Major Lloyd: Does not that somewhat misleading reply really mean that the Government are forcing the housewives to purchase what the bureaucrats would call non-index meat in order to protect their precious cost-of-living index, and how much longer will the public be asked to believe in this fraudulent fetish?
    Mr. Lee: It depends on how one looks at it. I think that it is the Question which is intended to be misleading and not the answer.
    Commander Noble: Can the Minister give the figures for fish?

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (APPEALS)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Labour how many appellants, who have appeared as conscientious objectors, have had their appeals dismissed, with a list of the grounds given for dismissing the appeal and the numbers in each case.
    Mr. Lee: I understand that this question relates to Scotland only. 1,743 out
    188
    of 2,760 appeals were dismissed between the first sitting in December, 1939, and the end of 1950. The Appellate Tribunal is not required to state the grounds for its decisions.
    Mr. Hughes: Does this number include the case of a well-known Scottish Nationalist whose appeal was dismissed on the ground that he was a Scottish Nationalist, and who was asked whether he had stolen the Stone of Destiny? Has the Minister any power at all to instruct these tribunals to review their decision?
    Mr. Lee: I do not know if it included the Scottish Nationalist whom my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he will give me details of the case, possibly I can find out something about it.

  SCOTLAND

    Fishings (Hydro-Electric Board)
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fishings are owned by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): The only fishings of any consequence owned by the Board are the Brahan and Scatwell fishings on the River Conon and the fishings at Invergarry. The Board also own fishing rights in Loch Faskally, the new reservoir at Pitlochry, and six minor fishings.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will not the Board be owning many more fishings as new schemes develop, and are not these very valuable assets so far as the tourist industry is concerned? Does the hon. Lady know what the Board intends to do about them?
    Miss Herbison: I could not say at this moment how many more the Board will be owning, but from the policy carried out by the Board it is very evident that they realise the importance of these fishings.

    Herring Industry (Financial State)
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the conflict of opinion expressed

    189
    by correspondence between the Scottish Herring Producers' Association and the Herring Industry Board, copies of which correspondence have been passed to him, regarding the financial state of the herring trade; and what steps he proposes to take to bring about a united effort on the part of all those engaged in the catching and sale of herring.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I have seen this correspondence. It relates to the Government's refusal of an application for a subsidy, which was made and strongly pressed by the Board on behalf of herring catchers, and to certain measures proposed by the Board and accepted by the Government to improve the general position of the industry. I understand that the Board intend shortly to submit further proposals to the Government.
    Mr. Stewart: In view of the high point which this controversy has reached, does not the hon. Gentleman think that perhaps he ought to invite the Herring Producers' Association to meet him and the Board and settle what is, after all, a very important matter, which is causing great trouble?
    Mr. Fraser: I think that the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries must accept that the Board is the instrument selected by Parliament to act as its agency, and we have to await the initiative coming from the Herring Industry Board.
    Mr. Boothby: Will the hon. Gentleman remind his colleague the Minister of Food that Parliament intended the Herring Industry Board to be its instrument, and that the Ministry of Food should not be interfering all the time in the most deleterious way in the affairs of the Board?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that one of the grievances of the herring fishermen in my constituency is that they are liable to the Class Z call-up and that the miners and agricultural workers are not? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour so that the fishermen can be exempted from any call-up of Class Z Reservists?
    Mr. Stewart: Do I take it from the hon. Gentleman's answer that he has definitely turned down any suggestion that the Herring Producers' Association should send a deputation to meet him?
    Mr. Fraser: Not at all. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the herring producers have been frequently to see my right hon. Friend, but it was the hon. Gentleman who said to me just now, in a supplementary question, that we should arrange for the producers to see the Board and have a meeting with them and the Minister, and I have said in my original answer that I understand that the Herring Board is about to submit further proposals. We shall receive and consider them.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the fact that I have received no reply to my supplementary question, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    School Meals
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what decrease has taken place in the number of meals provided for school children since the charge per meal was increased.
    Miss Herbison: The decrease is about 16,800 meals, or under 6 per cent.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that this decrease in the consumption of school meals is causing serious concern among local authorities in Scotland, and will she look into the matter, because it is felt that it is imposing hardship on school children?
    Miss Herbison: I have already gone very closely into this, and I can say that the whole of this decrease cannot be attributed to the rise in the cost of living. At the present time, each meal is subsidised at the rate of 8½d. and when there is more than one child in the family. at more than 8½d.

    Retired Teachers (Return to Service)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is prepared to take steps to enable retired teachers, who so desire, to return to duty without loss of pension.
    Miss Herbison: The draft of the Superannuation Scheme, which was published in December, 1949, contains proposals under which the pensions of retired teachers returning to service will be suspended and the teachers may be awarded increased pensions on final retirement and may receive an addition to their lump sums. No objection has beer taken to these proposals.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that my information is that there is very serious discontent in the teaching profession in Scotland with regard to the cut in pension which takes place when a teacher resumes teaching, and in view of the shortage of teachers will she look at this matter again?
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Can the hon. Lady assure the House that in all cases the salaries paid will exceed the pensions?
    Miss Herbison: I cannot give that assurance.

    Unqualified Nurses (Conditions)
    Mr. J. N. Browneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the present uncertainty, it is proposed to give any further consideration to the rates of pay and conditions of service of unqualified nursing staff employed in the National Health Service.
    Miss Herbison: I understand that the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council are awaiting a claim from the staff side in respect of unqualified nurses, other than those in mental hospitals who have already been dealt with by the Council.
    Mr. Browne: Is the hon. Lady aware that the unqualified nurses will be very gratified with her reply, because they have been waiting so long and were beginning to feel that they were nobody's babies? Will the Minister ensure that the question of retrospective payment is considered?
    Miss Herbison: I am afraid that at the present time I cannot give them that assurance. The decision is made by the Whitley Council, on which the staff side is represented.

    Fish Canning (Tinplate Supplies)
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply
    192
    he has sent to the Scottish Herring Producers Association in response to the appeal in connection with tinplate supplies contained in their letter to him of 7th February.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Although tinplate is in very short supply and many industries are having to accept cuts in their allocations, it is hoped to allocate to the fish canners the same supplies as in 1950. The canners have been told this and invited to get in touch with the Ministry of Food at once should they run into any difficulties. My right hon. Friend is writing to the Association accordingly, and is sending the hon. Member a copy of his letter.
    Mr. Stewart: Is not this a matter for the Herring Industry Board to take up with the canners, and not for the Government? Why is the Board excluded? Why must it be done by the Ministry of Food?
    Mr. Fraser: I should have thought it fairly obvious that the canners should get into touch with the Ministry of Food, and not with the Herring Industry Board.
    Mr. Boothby: Is the Minister not aware that a very small reduction in the amount of the tinplate we are now exporting would satisfy the requirements of the canners in this country?

    Silage Making
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to encourage the making of silage in Northern Scotland.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I can assure the hon. Member that very active steps to encourage silage making are being taken both in Northern Scotland and elsewhere.
    Mr. Grimond: In view of the importance of this matter, could the Under-Secretary of State give us more information about what the steps are?
    Mr. Fraser: Certainly. The North of Scotland College, for example, have arranged lectures and demonstrations, and there are exhibition films and feeding trials. I believe that the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society have arranged a special exhibit for June next. There has been a great increase in silage making in Scotland in recent years. There has not

    193
    been the same increase in Orkney and Shetland, but I hope that the position will improve there.

    Highland Transport Costs
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take, in view of the recommendations of the Cameron Committee, to alleviate the burden of transport costs in the Highlands.
    Miss Herbison: The recommendations of the Cameron Committee relating to transport costs are primarily matters for the British Transport Commission. I understand that the Commission have informed the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) that the recommendations will be considered in connection with the charges schemes now being drafted which will be submitted to the Transport Tribunal in due course.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Lady aware that the charges scheme will not be out till late this year and that in the meantime the burden is continuing? Is she further aware that the Cameron Committee recommended that there should be a deliberate policy of decreasing the charges? Will she ask her right hon. Friend to consult the Minister of Transport and to try to get a policy which will help the Highlands now?
    Miss Herbison: All the suggestions have been forwarded to the only body which can consider them at the present time, and we must await the decision made by that body.
    Major McCallum: Can the hon. Lady say whether the Cameron Committee's Report has been published, and if not, whether it will be published soon, because we get many inquiries in this matter, and the Committee's recommendations may go a long way to help organisations in the North of Scotland?
    Miss Herbison: I will make inquiries.

    Wool Clip (Prices)
    Squadron Leader Burdenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average price per pound paid by his Department for the 1950 Scotch wool clip;
    194
    and what selling price was obtained by his Department.
    Mr. T. Fraser: The overall average price paid for the 1950 clip in the United Kingdom was 27.05d. per pound. As the hon. and gallant Member knows, in accordance with the wool marketing scheme approved by Parliament last year, the clip is now being sold by auction under the authority of the British Wool Marketing Board. Prices have increased greatly in recent months and the latest figures range from 126d. to 153d. per pound.
    Squadron Leader Burden: If this money is not being used for an equalisation fund, is it not obvious that a large profit is being made by the Government by monopolistic control and that the cost of living is thereby increased, while the difficulties of cloth manufacturers in the Highlands and Islands are being made much more severe?
    Mr. Fraser: The hon. and gallant Member must not have heard me correctly. The wool is being sold by the British Wool Marketing Board, which is not an instrument of the Government but an instrument of the producers. If a profit is being made, it is being made by them.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

    Tuberculosis Cases
    Brigadier Headasked the Minister of Pensions what are the numbers of pensioners of the 1914–19 war and the 1939–45 war, respectively, who have tuberculosis; and the total numbers of those two categories who are classified as 100 per cent. disabled.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Isaacs): The numbers are estimated to be 17,000 and 52,000 respectively; of these pensioners 3,800 and 28,700 respectively are estimated to be in receipt of pension at the 100 per cent. disablement rate.

    100 per cent. Disablement Pensions
    Brigadier Headasked the Minister of Pensions how many pensioners are now receiving the 100 per cent, rate, plus both the unemployability supplement and constant attendance allowance.
    Mr. Isaacs: Four thousand five hundred and fifty.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Holidays and Sick Leave
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the maximum holiday and sick leave with pay allowed annually to the three highest grades of civil servants, respectively.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): For established staff in these grades, annual leave is allowed, subject to the needs of the Service, up to 36 days a year, in addition to public and privilege holidays not exceeding nine a year. Saturday absence, however, counts as a full day's leave. The corresponding allowance before the war was 48 days, in addition to the public holidays. The reductions made during the war have thus not so far been fully restored.
    Sick absence, supported by a medical certificate of incapacity, may be granted to any established civil servant up to six months on full pay in any 12 months, followed by six months on half pay. This is subject to an overriding limit of 12 months' sick leave in any period of four years.
    Mr. Osborne: In view of the present difficulties, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this leave is rather excessive?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member will no doubt bear in mind that there is not a five-day week in the Civil Service administrative grades, and further that it would not be right to suppose that all or by any means all civil servants in those grades take the maximum amount of leave.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Would the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that any period served in a Territorial camp will not count against the annual holiday?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I will look into that point.

    Male Typists (Pay)
    Miss Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds he has agreed to pay men typists one and a quarter times as much as women typists for the same work, while he continues to pay women civil servants less than men civil servants for equal work in other
    196
    grades; and if he will remedy this position.
    Mr. Gaitskell: This agreement was reached in the light of a recent award of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal.
    Miss Ward: While I am very well aware of that, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will very kindly answer the question about the grounds on which that decision was arrived at?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Because the tribunal had already awarded to male clerical assistants rates of pay equal to five-fourths of that awarded to clerical assistants and we considered that the same principle should obviously be applied in the case of typists.
    Miss Burton: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile that principle with the principle already accepted by the Government that the rate for the job should be paid in these various services?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I have already explained that this was a decision by the arbitration tribunal.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Raw Materials and Foodstuffs (Stocks)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the approximate cost at today's prices of bringing the national stocks of raw materials and foodstuffs derived from dollar sources up to the level of January, 1950; and whether this would be greater than the increase in our gold and dollar reserves since that date.
    Mr. Gaitskell: It is not possible to separate goods in stock from dollar and non-dollar sources. The fall during 1950 in stocks of raw materials (excluding petroleum), of which substantial proportions are or have been obtained from dollar sources, was about £40 million, valued at end-1950 dollar prices. This would, therefore, be the approximate cost of replacement, assuming supplies were available. As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 21st November, 1950, it is not the practice to publish figures relating to stocks of food. Our gold and dollar reserves rose during 1950 by £576 million.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the Chancellor aware that the volume of our exports last year increased by 16 per cent., whereas the volume of our retained imports increased by less than 1 per cent.? Does he not think that good stock is really better than cash, and will he not allow the finance to replenish our stocks?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Scarcity of dollars in no way holds up the import of raw materials.
    Mr. Harrison: Does my right hon. Friend accept the inference of this Question that our increase of gold and dollars was made by running down the imports of raw materials?
    Mr. Gaitskell: My answer makes it perfectly clear that that was not so.

    Estate Duty
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take with regard to the memorandum submitted to him on 20th November, 1950, by the National Union of Manufacturers urging that a public inquiry should be held into the effects on British industry of the present high rates of Estate Duty.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) on 6th February.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Where evidence has been submitted to the effect that high Estate Duty is having a serious effect on production, cannot something be done about it?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think there is any great evidence to that effect, or evidence of any hardship.

    Equal Pay (Industry)
    Miss Burtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far, at his recent meeting with the special Economic Committee of the Trades Union Congress, he was able to discuss the principle of the rate for the job in industry, particularly in view of the need for women recruits to help with the defence programme.
    Mr. Gaitskell: This is a matter for the two sides of industry, and was therefore not discussed at this meeting.
    Miss Burton: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will use such influence as he possesses to have this matter considered, in view of the number of women going into industry; or is it the intention of the Government that they should be regarded as cheap labour?
    Mr. Gaitskell: That is a question to he addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

    Superannuation Funds
    Mr. Maudlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority the Inland Revenue refuse to apply the provisions of Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1921, in respect of pensions of over £2.000 per annum.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Where the rules of a superannuation fund provide for the return of contributions in certain contingencies, Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1921, empowers the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to approve the fund, or part of the fund, subject to such conditions as they think proper. In such cases it is the practice of the Commissioners to withhold approval from any part of the fund which provides pensions in excess of £2,000.
    Mr. Maudling: In view of the fact that the Inland Revenue are now approving pensions of more than this sum in noncontributory schemes under the 1947 Act, is it not time that the rule was changed to bring it into line with the 1947 Act schemes?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No doubt this matter will be considered by the Tucker Committee on the taxation treatment of pensions on retirement. We should await the recommendations of that Committee.

    Blind Persons (Tobacco Duty Relief)
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the old persons tobacco concession to blind persons who receive their non-contributory old age pension at an earlier age than the normal.
    Mr. Gaitskell: This is already the case. Any blind person who is an habitual smoker and is in possession of a pension order book entitling him to a non-contributory pension under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, may apply for Tobacco Duty relief.
    Sir I. Fraser: Does that mean that they get it at the age of 40?
    Mr. Gaitskell: At the age of 40, yes.

    Art Galleries and Museums
    Dr. Barnett Strossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many national art galleries and museums in Britain are financially supported by his Department; and how much was the total sum expended in the years 1928. 1938 and 1948.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Ten, Sir. The total expenditure of public funds was £382,000, £443,000 and £687,000 in 1928, 1938 and 1948, respectively. This does not include expenditure by other Departments providing buildings and equipment.
    Dr. Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable part of these sums is provided by provincial citizens who are also subject to taxation, and that a much smaller sum expended in the Provinces on the galleries and museums in those areas would completely transform the very poor service that they tend to have?
    Mr. Gaitskell: That is really quite a different question.

    Purchase Tax (Tourists)
    Mr. J. N. Browneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to simplify the regulations governing the purchase of goods in the shops by visitors from overseas, especially during the period of the Festival of Britain.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the arrangements in regard to Purchase Tax. These are at present being carefully reviewed, in preparation for the coming tourist season; but I am not yet in a position to make an announcement.
    Mr. Browne: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the present arrangements are disliked by visitors and that in some cases they involve heavy handling fees? Is he also aware that until dollar purchases can be made over the counter by visitors, we shall lose business all the time to other countries who can provide a better service? Will he look into the matter most carefully?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I will certainly look into the matter, but it is a good deal
    200
    more complicated than the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question suggests.
    Sir H. Williams: Will this also apply to the oysters which, it is advertised in the United States, are to be available at the Festival, although they will be supplied in the months of the close season?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Oysters are not subject to Purchase Tax.

    Coal (Exports and Imports)
    Mr. Alportasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give an estimate of the net profit in hard currency derived from the sale of coal to the United States of America since 31st December, 1950, after taking into consideration the dollars expended on the import of coal from the United States of America during that period.
    Mr. Gaitskell: There have been no sales of coal to the U.S.A. since 31st December, 1950.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the additional sum of foreign exchange expended through the transhipment at Rotterdam of coal bought by the National Coal Board for importation into this country.
    Mr. Gaitskell: None, Sir.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If no foreign exchange has been expended, how is it that 30s. a ton is being charged for the trans-shipment, which is now somewhere in the order of £40,000, and from what source is the foreign exchange being provided?
    Mr. Gaitskell: According to my information, the present dollar freight rates from the United States to Rotterdam are less than those from the United States to the United Kingdom, and the difference exceeds the guilder expenditure on transshipment.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the freight rates of Norwegian vessels, because the B.E.A. colliers are not. I understand, sufficient for this traffic?
    Mr. Gaitskell: That does not make the slightest difference to the answer which I have just given. The amount of foreign exchange involved was less.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's statement that it has been found easier to trans-ship coal to Rotterdam on foreign exchange grounds rather than from America to this country, and, therefore, the extra burden of shipment from Holland to this country has to be borne by the consumer?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I explained that the foreign exchange was less.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Has not the right hon. Gentleman been inflating the dollar cost to this country by including in it demurrage which has been incurred by the dollar vessels waiting here because the ports are not capable of discharging them?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am sorry to press this, but would the right hon. Gentleman say if it is now his contention that shipping coal via Rotterdam to this country is cheaper than shipping it direct?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir, because we have to take into account the sterling expenditure on the shipment from Rotterdam itself.

    Dog Licences, Scotland
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the retention by local authorities of moneys collected for dog licences.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I presume the hon. Member is referring to local authorities in Scotland, where the dog licence duties are paid into the Exchequer. I will examine the hon. Member's suggestion in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Sir W. Darling: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if local authorities collect this money, they should be entitled to keep it so that they may discharge such duties as they are required to carry out in connection with the cleaning of streets?
    Mr. Gaitskell: There appears to be some anomaly there.

    Savings Certificates
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the new issue of National Savings Certificates have been sold.
    Mr. Gaitskell: During the period 1st to 6th February inclusive sales of the new issue of National Savings Certificates amounted to just under £8 million. This is the latest figure available.
    Mr. Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend say how that compares with the sales during a comparable period of the previous type of certificate?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The total savings for the corresponding six days of 1950 were £1,712,000.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there is any evidence that the old issue is being sold to purchase the new issue?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I have no definite evidence on that at present.

    Cost of Living (Pensioners)
    Mr. Peter Robertsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now institute an inquiry into the position of pensioners generally in view of the rising cost of living.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think that a comprehensive inquiry of the kind suggested is called for.
    Mr. Roberts: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer two questions? First, does he now recognise the seriousness of the rising cost of living? Secondly, is he prepared to take any action within the next two or three months in order to help the old age pensioners?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Of course, we are aware of the rising cost of living. The question whether we should take any action about old age pensioners raises a wide issue of policy and has to be considered in the light of our total burden so far as expenditure is concerned.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: When the right hon. Gentleman says that it raises a wide issue of policy which has to be considered in the light of our total burden, does he mean that it is being considered or that it should be considered?
    Mr. Gaitskell: It is continually under consideration, together with a lot of other things.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: When the right hon. Gentleman says that he is not prepared to enter into such a comprehensive inquiry, does that indicate that he would be prepared to institute a more limited inquiry?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, I do not think any inquiry is necessary here. The facts are known and it is a question of policy.
    Mr. Nicholson: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing?
    Mr. Osborne: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the rise will be checked within the next 12 months?

    RAW MATERIALS (INTERNATIONAL COMMODITY COMMITTEES)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the composition of the proposed groups to be established to allocate scarce raw materials, as a result of the recent discussions between the United States of America, France and this country.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on the setting up of international commodity groups to deal with scarce raw materials.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The House will recall that on 13th January the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and France put forward proposals for international action on scarce materials. Following further discussions between the three Governments, the United States Government, acting on behalf of all three, has recently issued invitations to a number of major producing and consuming countries to form the first Standing Commodity Groups—or Committees as they are to be known—in conformity with the proposals of 13th January. A further announcement will be made regarding the membership of the Committees when replies to the invitations have been received.
    The materials concerned are: nonferrous metals—copper, zinc and lead in one Committee; molybdenum and tungsten in another; manganese, nickel and cobalt in a third. Separate Committees
    204
    are also proposed for cotton, wool and sulphur. It is hoped that the first Committee will meet by the end of this month, and that all will be working by the beginning of April. Their functions will be, as already explained, to consider and recommend to Governments the specific action which should be taken in the case of each commodity in order to expand production, increase and conserve supplies and assure their most effective distribution and use among consuming countries.
    The Committees will be autonomous bodies and will themselves decide their own procedures. They will report direct to the Governments concerned and not to any existing international organisation or to the central group. But countries who are not members of the Commodity Committees will be able to represent their viewpoints and interests to the Committees.
    I very much hope that these arrangements will enable speedy action to be taken internationally to deal with this vital problem.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of the functions of the proposed committees, may I ask him what actual power they will have to enforce any decision they may take or to see that the recommendations they make for an allocation of a raw material are followed up by the other countries?
    Mr. Gaitskell: They have no power except to make recommendations to Governments.
    Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is added to their terms of reference the question of restricting the export of those raw materials of which we are particularly short?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, I have no doubt that that will be covered.
    Mr. Edelman: Will not the success of the international commodity groups depend on domestic controls, and will my right hon. Friend introduce as soon as possible domestic control of the raw materials which are in short supply?
    Mr. Gaitskell: As far as I am aware, control exists in relation to scarce materials already.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how far these groups will take into account strategic needs?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I should say that they will certainly take into account strategic needs.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to bear in mind, in regard to the non-ferrous metals Committee, the desirability of having as a British member of the Committee someone thoroughly familiar with the British Midlands metal manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Burke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this question is very urgent because before long there may be a shortage of raw cotton in Lancashire and mills may be unemployed?
    Mr. Gaitskell: We are indeed very well aware of the urgency and importance of this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about the progress of business today?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The House is aware from the business statement that we desire to obtain today the first five Orders on the Paper and the eight Motions relating to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Orders. Some of the items for consideration today will not, I believe, occupy the House for any great length of time. We have already spent time in Committee on the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill and the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill. I trust that it will be agreeable to hon. Members in all parts of the House to assist us in completing the Committee stages of both those Bills today. The House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Orders are, of course exempted Business, but we propose to ask the House to agree to a Motion to suspend the Rule for one and a half hours.
I beg to move,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business he exempted, at this day's sitting, from
206
the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for one hour and a half after Ten o'Clock."
Question put, and agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: It is no good hon. Members saying "no" now. I collected the voices and there was not a single "no."
Mr. Eden: I am sorry, Sir. I think I ought to say, in fairness to the usual channels, that there was discussion between us as to whether this should be an unlimited suspension or not, which is what the Government themselves desire. We thought that one and a half hours was a reasonable compromise, and that is what we sought to arrive at.
Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) for what he has said, but I must point out to hon. Members that once I have collected the voices it is no good saying "no" afterwards. That is the important time. "Noes" should be said at the moment, not later. I do not want to be hard on anybody and I do not want to stop a Division, but it must be done in the proper way.
Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. As far as we could make out down here, the voices had not been collected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There was a great deal of noise going on—the noise was not at this end of the Chamber—and, as far as we could tell the voices had not been collected. After all, whatever the usual channels may have arranged, the great mass of the back benchers knew nothing about this. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, yes we did."] Naturally, the party opposite are regimented, but hon. Members on this side of the House are not.
Mr. Speaker: I quite agree with the hon. Member. If he does not like what his Front Bench does, he is entitled to vote against the Motion. But, after all, I am the judge of whether or not the voices have been collected, and I was quite satisfied at that moment that the voices had been collected. Therefore, the Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

    Clause 1.—(ISSUE OF £40,000,000 OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED FUND FOR THE SERVICE OF THE YEAR ENDING 31ST MARCH, 1951.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    3.38 p.m.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: May I ask your Ruling, Major Milner, on a point which I wish to raise concerning the Colonial Office? This Bill refers to a sum of £40 million. During the Session we have passed the Colonial Development Bill under which £20 million are to be expended for that purpose. I am asking for a Ruling whether this Bill covers that amount so that I may be able to raise the matter of the deportation of Mr. Ignatius Musazi from Uganda.
    The Chairman: In reply to the hon. Member, I am informed that no item in this sum covers the Colonial Office and the point to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Therefore, I am afraid it is not competent for him to raise any point on it.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask by what measures the additional amount of £20 million voted to the Colonial Office will be covered? Will it be in any Consolidated Fund or other Bill?
    The Chairman: I can only say that the item is not in this Bill. It may conceivably be in a later Bill, but I am clearly not in a position to advise the hon. Member as to that at the moment.
    Mr. Brockway: I do not want to press the matter unreasonably, but in view of the fact that this Bill does not define how the £40 million is expended, may I still press the point?
    The Chairman: As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, this sum is based on a Ways and Means Resolution which, in turn, is based on proceedings of the Committee of Supply. The hon. Member must therefore look back, if he desires to do so, to the Committee of Supply. I am sorry.
    Sir Herbert Williams: I understand that this Bill deals with a sum of £40 million, of which some is devoted to the Army, some to the Navy and some to the Royal Air Force. I think I am right about that. As we are to stay a bit late tonight there is no reason why we should not talk a little about this £40 million now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Naturally; I made a little protest at the way in which the usual channels completely ignore the private back benchers and do not tell us anything at all. Whether all this £40 million is being wisely spent is open to some doubt. There are two lots of £10 million, one lot of £20 million, and I think the greater sum goes to the Army, although I have not the Bill in front of me at the moment.
    Mr. Harrison: On a point of order. Owing to the declared intention of the hon. Member to waste time as a protest against what he described as the usual channels, is it in order for him to continue speaking?
    The Chairman: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would permit the Chair to conduct the proceedings of the Committee.
    Sir H. Williams: My declarations are as to my intentions, my deeds have to be judged on their own merits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then they are already condemned."] Up to now I do not think I have wasted any time. I have drawn attention to the fact that some £40 million of extra money is being voted for a very proper purpose, namely, the Supplementary Estimates for the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force in the hope that at some time or another we shall have defences adequate to defend us against the perils to which we are now exposed. I am wondering whether that money has been entirely wisely expended. From information in my possession, a very large proportion of those who have been called up under the National Service Act are wasting their time.
    Mr. Key: Like the hon. Member.
    Sir H. Williams: No, I am not wasting my time now. I am instructing the hon. Member for Poplar, which is never a waste of time, although I agree it is rather hard work.

    209
    A great waste of time is taking place in the training of many of these young people. What we are suffering from is the fortnightly call-up. Some hon. Members have been engaged in the teaching profession. They would find their task quite impossible if at every fortnight of the 12 weeks' term a new crowd of children were to arrive and the teachers found themselves engaged in the very difficult task of simultaneously teaching six sets in different stages of education. That is what is happening today in the Army. The result is that we have a vast proportion—
    The Chairman: The hon. Member appears to be dealing with general policy, which is not a matter within the Supplementary Estimates unless he can point to some item in those Estimates which deals with the matter to which he refers.
    Sir H. Williams: As we are calling up more people, the method of training these additional people seems to be pertinent to what I am saying. If this method were not pursued we should spend less money and get more soldiers, which is a reasonable proposition. We are getting a very poor yield of trained soldiers from the main Estimate and also from the Supplementary Estimate. Naturally, Major Milner, I always have a great respect for your decisions, and I do not want to delay the proceedings of the Committee much longer. I have made my protest on an entirely different matter, and therefore I will not obstruct the Bill any more.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported without amendment, read the Third time, and passed.

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUNDAY OPENING) BILL
Lords Amendment considered.
FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUNDAY OPENING) BILL

  Clause 1.—(SUNDAY OPENING OF EXHIBITIONS AND GARDENS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 39, at end, insert:
  (5) For the purposes of the Shops Act, 1950, the place where any exhibition above referred to is being held, and the festival gardens so referred to, shall be treated as falling within the description "gallery, museum, garden, park or ancient monument under the control of a
  210
  public authority or university" in sub-paragraph (l) of paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the said Act (which sub-paragraph relates to the sale on Sunday at the places therein mentioned of guide books, postcards, etc.).
  3.43 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the Festival Office, the Festival Exhibition, and Festival Gardens Limited in the pleasure gardens, to sell guide books, postcards, photographs, reproductions, photographic films and plates, and souvenirs in the several places covered by the Bill up to 10 p.m. on Sundays, in accordance with Section 42 of the Shops Act, 1950. The Festival organisation naturally want to have these things, particularly guide books, on sale on Sundays, but as it stands the relevant section of the Fifth Schedule of the shops Act, 1950, permits of their sale only at places like galleries and museums, but not at exhibitions or in pleasure gardens.
  In short, the Shops Act follows the line of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and is therefore drawn too narrowly to cover the Festival Exhibition and Pleasure Gardens. This provision should have been part of the Bill from the start, but the need for it had not been discovered when the Bill was drafted. The Amendment was passed in another place without comment.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: We should all recognise that the other place has remedied a defect in the Bill and should express our gratitude to them for what they have done, and also to the right hon. Gentleman for his clear exposition of the object of the Amendment. As I understand it, the Amendment is designed simply to legalise the selling of postcards, guide books and things of that sort at the Festival. It is a little curious to reflect that that can only be legalised by treating the Festival as an ancient monument. Whatever epithets those in favour of the Festival or those opposed to it might have thought of applying to the Festival, the last one to have entered our heads would have been to call it a gallery, museum or ancient monument, but apparently it is necessary to do so solely to provide for the sale of postcards, to which we have no objection.
  Question put, and agreed to.

LIVESTOCK REARING BILL
Order for Third Reading read.
3.46 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move—
Mr. I. J. Pitman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a Motion down for the recommittal of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: I do not want to be unkind, but I looked at the Motion and I did not select it. It is very unusual to have a recommittal on Third Reading.
Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
The Bill received an unopposed passage on Second Reading and comes back to the House without amendment in Committee. I do not intend to repeat my Second Reading speech in commending it to the House. All I need repeat is that the Bill increases the sum available for hill farm and upland farm improvement schemes from £4 million to £20 million. It also continues the hill sheep and hill cattle subsidies for a further five years at a cost of about £11 million.
The Bill, combined with the Hill Farming Act, 1946, represents the biggest effort to develop hill lands made by any Government during this century. To have listened to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) last Thursday evening, one might have thought that the Government had never heard the name of Professor Ellison. We had not only heard of the name, but while Conservative headquarters were searching their records to help with that speech, we were accepting his advice and legislating accordingly. I should have thought that it came ill from the right hon. Gentleman to chastise this Government for their actions or inactions on marginal land.
After all, we must recall that between the wars the Conservative Party were in office for 17 years, five months and four days, and did nothing about uplands or hill lands. In fact, millions of acres of good agricultural land went out of production. So with the figures. The right hon. Member quoted the production of lamb and mutton in 1939 and 1950, but said not a word about the fact that in 1945, when the Labour Party came into office, there were between six and seven million fewer sheep than in 1939. Nor
212
did he make any allowances for the three or four million sheep we lost in the blizzards of 1947. I thought that that was a descent below the normal of the right hon. Gentleman in debates in the House.
I am not sure whether the Amendment to the Third Reading Motion which I notice on the Order Paper will be called.
["In view of the Government's failure to supply a reasonable ration to the public or to build up emergency stocks of meat, this House declines to give a Third Reading to a Bill which, whilst recognising sound principle, lacks urgency, is inadequate to the nation's needs, can only encourage meat production on less than one-third of the three-and-a-half million acres of our livestock-raising uplands, and will still leave ten million acres of our land barren of production."]
I shall be interested to see whether hon. Members whose names are associated with it have the courage to vote for the Amendment at the end of the day. If the Amendment is not called, I shall be very interested to see whether they vote against the Bill, or not. On Second Reading the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale) said:
"We welcome this Bill as a contribution towards the problem of securing increased production from a proportion of the marginal land in the United Kingdom."
Later he said:
"We on this side of the House, in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill today, hope that in the fulness of time the rehabilitation of some of the marginal land in this country will mean a very real increase in our home meat production from which the whole nation will benefit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 833, 841.]
I am convinced that the hon. Baronet was expressing the sentiments, not only of hon. Members on these benches, but of hon. Members sitting behind him at that time.
Of course, the rejection of this Bill would be fatal in that it would not only destroy any hope there may be of an increased home meat production, but it would quickly bring to an end the work of improving hill farms now well under way under the provisions of the Hill Farming Act and also cut off the hill sheep and hill farming subsidy after this year. Those two subsidies are helping very materially to maintain foundation flocks, flocks of hardy hill sheep normally

213
numbering 4,750,000 ewes, but even now in some parts of the country struggling, with the help of this subsidy, to recover from the devastation of 1947.
The Amendment also charges the Government with a lack of urgency because the extra £10 million provided for improving livestock rearing lands will improve only one-third of the 3,500,000 to four million acres of uplands. The hon. Members cannot have taken note of the possibility of the availability of labour and raw materials. It seems to me that the amount of money which has been set apart under the terms of this Bill will absorb all the labour and materials that can be available for some considerable time. If the sum provided in this Bill were either doubled or trebled, in view of the shortage of labour and raw materials, I doubt if the landlords' or tenants' capital would be there to match any sums put up by the Government, at least during the next five years.
This Amendment, which I am rather astonished to see—particularly with the names associated with it—seems to imply that we can produce beef or mutton overnight, if only the money is made available. As most hon. Members know, a bullock takes about three years to grow into beef, and it takes between four and five years before we can hope to see any real effect from any of these improvement schemes as far as meat is concerned. I know it is not impossible to grow pineapples on the top of Snowdon, nor to grow mustard and cress on the pavements of Glasgow, but the Government will hardly be expected to regard that as a good, solid, investment—
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Groundnuts?
Mr. Williams: This Bill is dealing with the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) wanders about all over the place and one never knows quite where he is. I notice from another source that he was suggesting that if only we had completely upset our guaranteed price and a stabilised market in a certain direction and for a certain commodity we would not need this Bill. I do not think that is good policy or fair and reasonable to "flotsam and jetsam" because some world event has caused some serious change in the price of one particular commodity. This Government set out to
214
provide stability, which no Conservative Government did in the past. Once the hon. Member makes up his mind whether he wants stability, or fluctuating wholesale prices such as there were in the interwar years, perhaps we shall know just where he stands.
This is a modest Bill; it is part of a long-term process and, as I said in winding up on Second Reading:
"This Bill, in fact, represents the second stage—the Hill Farming Act being the first—of the attack on the long-term problem of these areas, and, as such, I hope the Bill will commend itself to both sides of the House."
I said:
"This is not the end of the problem; it is simply the beginning of the end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 832.]
That is all I regard it as. I am convinced that, given the right start and the right encouragement, the £28 million made available in this Bill will have a profound effect in improving upland farms in this country and ultimately cannot fail to help to increase the supplies of home produced meat available for the housewife.
3.57 p.m.
Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Before making the few observations I have to make on the Third Reading, it would be helpful if we could have your guidance, Sir, whether or not you intend to call the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill put down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser), and other hon. Friends.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient if I said "no" now. I am afraid it is quite impossible to call the Amendment. It is out of order according to our rules. It may be of interest to hon. Members to know that Erskine May says:
"As the debate on Third Reading should be confined to the content of the Bill, reasoned Amendments which contain matters not included in the Bill are not permissible."
As the first part of the Amendment deals with
"failure to supply a reasonable ration to the public or to build up emergency stocks,"
and I cannot find any of that in the Bill, the Amendment is out of order and I am afraid those subjects are out of order also in debate.
Sir T. Dugdale: We on this side of the House are grateful for having that made clear, because the Minister, when moving the Third Reading, said rightly that this is a very modest Bill and the situation has changed very considerably since we had the Second Reading debate on 11th December last year. At that time the meat ration was not exactly in the same position as it is today. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone and other hon. Friends have done a public service in calling the attention of the House to the present position.
I should like to confirm that I stand by what I said during the Second Reading of the Bill, namely, that we welcome the Bill, for it will deal with a proportion of the marginal land of this country, and I do that on the old commonsense principle that perhaps half a loaf is better than no bread at all. On behalf of my hon. Friends I wish the Bill well in its application to a proportion of the marginal lands of this country. But I cannot sit down without reinforcing one of the sentences used by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone in his Amendment, namely, that even in this Measure, as in many other Measures which come before the House, there seems to be a complete lack of urgency on the part of His Majesty's Government in the difficult position in which we find ourselves. Although we hope that in the fulness of time this Bill will be the means of producing more meat for the harassed housewife, we know that it is only a long-term measure and can in no way meet the present emergency.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. S. N. Evans: I am very sorry that the Amendment did not commend itself to you, Mr. Speaker, because it seemed to me to be the epitome of effrontery. I am amused by the use of the word "modest," both by the Minister and by the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale). Many words seem to have changed their meaning since I was a boy. Now we get "modest" in connection with £28 million of public money. I think it is about time the House asked itself how much longer this can go on. Last year out of £1,388 million Income Tax, 4s. 4d. of every £ went in subsidies to the farmer.
Mr. Hurd (Newbury): Not in this country alone.
Mr. Evans: Yes, in this country alone; either by direct subsidy paid through the Ministry of Agriculture or on losses sustained on home-produced food and borne on Ministry of Food Votes in this House.
I wish to ask the House how much longer is this business of financial blood transfusions from the harassed taxpayer to the farmers to go on? I do not think it can go on much longer. I am not unaware of the fact that the farming community is the beneficiary of a conspiracy of silence about agricultural economics. Nevertheless I think that before very long there will be a change of opinion, and that more attention will have to be given to it.
I should like to know whether part of this money is to be used to produce more milk, because it seems to me that we are getting ourselves into a bit of a jam with milk. I remember that last spring we had a five-million gallon surplus which nobody knew what to do with. Domestic consumption was up to the limit, all the manufacturers had been filled up, and it began to appear as though this milk, which had cost the nation 2s. 9½d. a gallon would have to be sold back to the farmers for about 5d.; the farmers would feed it to calves, upon which we should then pay a £7 million subsidy. That seems like "Alice in Wonderland" economics to me, and I should like some assurance that no part of this money is going to the production of more milk—particularly as I note that the President of the National Farmers' Union, speaking at a farmers' dinner in December, said that within five years we could confidently anticipate another 375 million gallons of milk from the same number of cows that we have at the moment. This intrigued me greatly—
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Minister will help me, but I understand that this Bill has nothing to do with milk whatsoever. It is a Livestock Rearing Bill and nothing less. Therefore, any discussion on milk is out of order.
Mr. T. Williams: That is perfectly true, Mr. Speaker. The Bill is, as its name implies, a livestock rearing Bill and does not in any way, shape or form, set out to encourage milk production.
Mr. Speaker: Then it is quite clear that milk is not in the Bill and we can

217
only discuss what is in the Bill. Therefore, we cannot discuss milk. That is out of order.
Mr. Evans: I suggest there is nothing in the Bill that prohibits the subsidising of the breeding of more milking cows. "Livestock" is a comprehensive term which would cover all types of cattle; and therefore a discussion on whether part of this money is to be used to produce more milk, a commodity which is already in surplus supply, would be in order.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not, not on Third Reading. It might have been in order on Second Reading and in Committee, but not now.
Mr. Evans: Very well, we shall have to tackle this from another angle. I suggest that concentration on the development of marginal land is a mistake. I am not opposed to the development of marginal land, although I do not think our agricultural problems can be solved by chasing sheep and nanny-goats up Snowden. The solution lies in the lowlands, in a more intensive cultivation of those fertile acres that are to be found in the lowlands.
The other day I read that the Dutch support two-and-a-half cows on a given acreage compared with one in Britain. Therefore if we want to increase our livestock population, the need today is not to keep pouring vast sums of money into the marginal lands where, as the Minister has indicated, there exists the social problems of labour, housing and transport. No social problems of a similar character exist in the lowlands. Our problem would seem to be how to develop the existing fertility in the lowlands which we should attempt to solve instead of adopting the policy envisaged in this Bill. The National Farmers Union and the Ministry would do very much better to address themselves to that problem rather than to keep coming to this House for unending sums of money out of the purse of the taxpayer.
I will not say any more about that at the moment. There will be other and perhaps better opportunities for going more fully into this matter of agricultural economics. It is a question of prime importance, because, as a result of this constant "feather bedding" the industry is getting something like a boxer after a
218
long lay-off. And Tommy Farr recently found what happens to a boxer after a long lay-off. I believe that a harder and healthier mattress for this industry would serve, not only the interests of the industry, but, what is even more important, the interests of the nation.
4.8 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I very much regret, Mr. Speaker, that you were unable, owing to the edict of Erskine May, to call this interesting Amendment which I think would have found considerable support from the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans); though, if we had divided on this matter my reasons and those of the hon. Member for "feather bedding" would have been different. My approach to the matter, and I hope it is an approach that will continue, is the approach of Oliver Twist—to ask for more. The approach of the hon. Member is to see that less is given.
Mr. S. N. Evans: The farmers are beginning to make Oliver Twist look like a selling plater.
Mr. Fraser: I hope that the spirit of Oliver Twist does not die in this country. My right hon. Friend talked about half a loaf being better than none. I think that the whole object of a reformer—and we on this side of the House regard ourselves as reformers at this stage—should be to ask for more and more until we get the matter right.
I also regret that we could not have had a Division on that Amendment in so far as I believe that, had it been a secret ballot, the Minister would probably have voted with us. It is true, as he has said in earlier speeches, that this is only an experimental matter and that this is only the beginning. It seems to me that the meat crisis is likely to continue for a very long time. If I may make just one reference to the debate on meat supplies—the Minister made such a reference—I would point to the statistics produced by the Minister of Food. He said that the world meat shortage was continuing and, that, despite increases of something like two million or three million tons in meat production throughout the world since 1938, there was actually a fall in the exportable surplus.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to expect that the shortage of meat in this

219
country for the purposes of stockpiling and consumption, will remain in the neighbourhood of 500,000 or 600,000 tons. The Government have been tardy in putting forward the right measures to assist home production, That was our only object in tabling our reasoned Amendment. We have no need to make political capital out of this. The hand that failed to feed the people will be bitten hard enough at the next election. We need not worry about that.
We want to see that this matter is put right as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, doubtless you yourself have suffered recently because of the shortage of meat. With vermin selling at 3s. 6d. a 1b.—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is getting on to dangerous ground. The meat ration, I think, is not in the Bill.
Mr. Fraser: Neither in the Bill nor elsewhere. The question remains whether or not we should have a more forward and effective scheme than that suggested in this Bill. Owing to the shortages in the world, we are forced to cultivate our own garden to a greater extent. I remind the hon. Member for Wednesbury that the average acreage per head of the population on what he calls the good low lying land is less than three-quarters of an acre. There are some 16 million acres which are, so to speak, beyond the fence of the national home farm, on which he would intensify cultivation and which could produce more beef and sheep. An hon. Member asks why we did not do it. The reason is simple enough. No political party since the days of 1870 and cheap meat has bothered sufficiently about meat production in this country. The time for that is now.
I said the other day that this Bill was the Magna Charta of the hill farming industry. I still say that. The point is that every Magna Charta gets out of date. If hon. Gentlemen were living under the original Magna Charta still, they would all be locked up in prison. We have to have reform and it is usually granted under the pressure of events. The pressure of events is clear enough when vermin is 3s. 6d. a 1b. Even if that gives some satisfaction to the Minister of Labour who must delight on a more valuable Opposition, it gives none to us. Meat is being bought at £177 per ton.
220
These are the types of pressure which demand a wider Bill than this.
The acreage available is roughly 1b million acres. In 1946, in his wisdom, the Minister of Agriculture looked at these acres and divided them rather in the way that Pope Alexander VI divided the New World from the Old by an imaginary line, or in the way that Czar Alexander drove the trans-Siberian railway by a scratch across the map. This was a most arbitrary division in 1946 to which part of this Bill refers. Since then, the Minister has extended the principle which divided hill land from other marginal land, to bring in approximately another three or four million acres.
There are available for grants something like six or seven million acres of hill land, and three or four million acres of upland, plus the area of marginal land not referred to in this Bill. Perhaps I should say that some of it is referred to in the nature of heath and other types of country. This leads to considerable confusion. What has happened is that the Minister has absorbed into the bosom of this scheme more and more land without a sufficient capital to make this scheme a working proposition. In his speech on Second Reading the Minister confessed that the money available could only benefit the uplands and the heath. My hon. Friends on this side of the House are in a quandary as to which heaths are included and which are not. Some dales are included, and some downs are not. Blackheath is not included, nor are some of the Norfolk heaths. There is considerable difficulty on this point.
Of the 3,500,000 acres suitable for the production of stock, only about one million can be affected by the amount of money available. That means that during the next few years, instead of 120,000 tons of beef or mutton being produced, a mere 40,000 tons will be the maximum which can be expected. Similarly, if one distributes the rest of the money available under this Bill to hill land, one finds that there is a very small quantity available for new action. Already £7 million or £8 million have been spent. That means that probably there is only another £2 million or £3 million available.
When, for example, we see that the butchers are paid about £23 million a year for not selling meat, we on this side of the House cannot understand why the

221
Government do not give more help in the rebuilding of hill land. One of the points mentioned by the Minister was that nothing more could be effected at the moment. He said that it was impossible to move faster because of the shortage of raw materials and manpower. I suggest that this matter is moving forward very slowly. Since 1946 about £8 million have been spent on hill farming. I think that figure is correct.
Mr. T. Williams: Mortgaged.
Mr. Fraser: More than £8 million mortgaged but not actually spent. This matter is one of great urgency. Reference was made to the position of our stocks. We must always keep that in mind, even though we cannot discuss the matter fully in connection with this Bill. One of the best means of keeping up stocks of meat is surely to have meat on the hoof, because it is better than depending on stocks of meat coming from overseas or on stocks of canned meat. From the stock point of view, this is a matter of great importance. I believe, therefore, on this question of speed, we should see that there is much more effective machinery than is provided in this Bill. From the administrative point of view, the matter is now in the hands of the local agricultural executive committees, and it is up to them with these greater powers to get on with their administrative job at a greater speed.
Similarly, in regard to the question of supplies, the problem of growing more meat in this country is one of giving proper priority by the Government, which has not been given by this Government up to the present time, excellent though this scheme may be. If the degree of priority such as was given to the groundnuts scheme, the Gambia project or the project in Northern Australia, were given to this scheme, we could get the materials and the labour, if need be, by bringing it in from overseas to carry out the road building programme. Road building constitutes one of the principal obstacles to the development of these areas, but these things could be done.
The facts and figures illustrating our lack of meat are clear to everyone today, and the potential added production from this country could, on a conservative estimate, be reckoned in the neighbourhood of 200,000 tons of beef and at least 100,000 more tons of mutton. The gap
222
today between last year's actual supplies and next year's possible supplies must be at least those amounts; I think the gap is something like 600,000 tons. A great contribution could be made, not immediately, but over the next four or five years by a steadily expanding programme, and I believe that the Minister would be fully justified in appealing to his colleagues in the Cabinet for greater priority for this matter.
It is perfectly arguable that today, with world meat prices where they are, when we are importing meat at £177 per ton, or even importing it from the Argentine at £120 or £140 per ton, when we have paid for freight rates, insurance and distribution costs, British meat produced at about £150 per ton would not be expensive, especially if we have regard to the enormous strategic asset, and the enormous social and political asset, of having our own production. I think the Minister, whom we all respect, has a chance to go to his right hon. Friends, the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet, and say, "Look what you have done in the past, and at the money you are wasting today—£23 million to the butchers, £36 million on groundnuts, and a few millions on this or that scheme, plus bad purchases by various Ministries, when here we have a scheme which will bring into effective production another three million acres of upland by the expenditure of some £20 million or £30 million in the next few years." That money could be found and spent, and the British public would be the beneficiaries.
4.22 p.m.
Mr. Slater: I should like to say to the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) that the agricultural policy of the Labour Government will stand up to any test or criticism from any hon. Member of the Opposition. I join with other hon. Members on this side of the House in giving a general welcome to this Bill. When we take into consideration the position prior to the war, when we were producing only one-third of the food which we ate, we should remember that today, under our present system of production, we are producing more than half the food we eat.
Hon. Members who represent rural constituencies will have talked, as I have done, with members of the farming community and those with farming

223
interests, and I want to say, from the general conversations which I have had, that I am sure there is general approval for this Bill. I am only sorry, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), that the Amendment put down by Opposition hon. Members has not been called, because we should have been able, in reply to it, to present a picture to the country which would not have been very glamorous from the point of view of hon. Members opposite. Our relations with the Argentine today are unfortunate, but this should bring home to the people of this country the need to develop our own livestock production. We have to lay the emphasis on the production of beef and mutton.
Clause 1 of the Bill is very important, because it widens the scope of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, and I am glad that improvement schemes under this Clause are not to be limited to hill farming land, but will now cover livestock rearing land. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said in the Second Reading debate that there are thousands of acres of land in this country which could be developed for livestock production. In my native county of Durham, in the uplands of Weardale and Teesdale, there is great need for capital expenditure and the rapid extension of capital development schemes. The Fell farmers of my county, who farm land rising to the Pennines, have not in the past enjoyed the prosperity of the lowland farmers, and I trust that this Bill will help them, and, what is more, will enable them to increase the nation's food supplies.
Any sum of money that is granted today by this House to improve the fertility of our soil and the quantity of our stock will be money well spent. To me this Bill is a means of national investment, and I compliment the Minister on his initiative in presenting this scheme on behalf of the agricultural community.
4.29 p.m.
Mr. I. J. Pitman: I am not going to oppose this Bill on the ground of "feather-bedding" because it is proposed to spend £28 million; nor on the ground that it does not go far enough, as one of my hon. Friends on this side has already said; but on grounds which I know to be in order, since in Clause 12
224
the word "livestock" is used and causes a great deal of confusion. That is confirmed by the fact, Mr. Speaker, that when you were raising the question while the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) was speaking, you referred for help to the Minister of Agriculture, who assured the House that milk cows could not possibly be included in this Bill, because they were not livestock.
It seems to me to be perfectly clear that they are livestock, and that livestock is a very wide general term and that its use is likely to cause similar confusion throughout the country, unless we avoid using words in this House in a wrong sense. It seems to me that we should be particularly careful about our use of the King's English and that we should make our laws in such a way as to be absolutely clear. Secondly, the Minister will agree that, in his own registry, there is need for the Bill to be classified in accordance with a regular and sensible system. I shudder to think what the girls in the registry of the Ministry of Agriculture will in future years be saying over the classification of a Bill about land under the heading of a Bill about animals. Moreover, it is far too wide in its inclusion of animals. It seems to me that Clause 1 (3) limits it to sheep and cows which are not for milk. In other words, it is the narrowest of all possible definitions; it is only two types of animals, and it is not those animals when they are doing at all well.
Finally, we have to realise that up and down the country people have to refer to the Acts passed by this House, and that it is a great advantage to them, if they are looking up anything which they think affects them, that they should look under some heading bearing some relation to the subject which they think is the subject of the Bill, namely, livestock. If we look in the Oxford Dictionary we find that its first meaning is "animals generally," and its first use was in 1777, quoting from "The School for Scandal," where we get "Nothing but livestock, and that's only a few pointers and ponies." But the Bill has nothing to do with pointers or ponies at all.
I maintain that it is a great blemish in this Bill that in Clause 12, and throughout the Bill, it proceeds to deal with land under the heading of the generalised product of the land. It may

225
be that the Bill ought to bear the name "poor land," or that we should limit to store cattle and store sheep the livestock in the name. I do not know what we ought to do, because I should be out of order if I were to propose it, but what I can say under the rules of order is that I think the Minister should look very carefully at this particular aspect of the Bill and try to word it better in another place.
4.33 p.m.
Mr. Dye: I was very glad to have from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) a little lecture on the King's English, but, surely, if an hon. Member wishes to improve a Bill or to alter its name, he should come along on Second Reading or turn up during the Committee stage, and not endeavour to make his alteration on Third Reading when the work has been done.
Mr. Pitman: The hon. Gentleman was probably not here when I tried to move the re-committal of the Bill so that this could be done as an Amendment.
Mr. Dye: I was here, but that was too late. We had a Second Reading, and some of us were present then, and we also had a Committee stage. It is, of course, in the tradition of the party opposite to be too late and then to come along and tell people they have not done enough, as in the case of the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) with his great enthusiasm for farming these days.
But what does the Bill seek to do? It seeks to make good the losses and decay of hill farms over the last century. It is in no wise an effort to make good any loss of the past five, 10 or 20 years. There was a time when our hill farms were in a state of greater productivity than they have been in recent years. With the rising standard of living, which those who live and work on hill farms have every right to share, efforts must be made to bring their accommodation, the roads which they use to get to the farms, the water supply, the drainage of the land and lots of other things into such condition as will enable them to live and work there in more comfort than they have at the present time.
Therefore, when the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) comes along, as he did today, he is just like
226
a poor old dog barking up the wrong tree. He thinks that our problem today is one of finance. It is nothing of the sort; it is one of meat on the plate, and of getting the cattle and the sheep from the farms in this country in order to make up the deficiency. In what way does this Bill seek to do that? It seeks to do it by enabling the farmers who are breeders of stock on the hills to carry a greater head of breeding cattle and sheep. For that purpose—for a limited number of years—it offers a subsidy per head of the stock so that, instead of those people getting their living from selling as many cattle and sheep as possible, they will keep back some for breeding purposes in order to build up their stock.
There is to be a partnership between the nation and those farmers to enable that to be done. But, as I say, along comes this poor old dog barking up the wrong tree, and thinking it is a financial problem. It is nothing of the sort; it is the increasing of the number of cows and ewes that will give birth to calves and lambs in those areas where there are people anxious and willing to rear greater quantities of stock, but where they cannot fatten them.
Mr. S. N. Evans: Would the hon. Gentleman answer me this question? Is there anything in this Bill which prevents this money being used for increasing the cow population, which, in turn, would mean more milk at a time when the great need is meat for the table?
Mr. Dye: It is really pathetic if an hon. Member cannot read a Bill before taking part in a debate on it in this House, and cannot understand what it is about. It is pathetic enough that an hon. Member elected to this House should know little or nothing about farming, but when he cannot pick up even a small Bill like this and read it in order to know and understand what he is talking about, it really is time that he had a little more leisure at the week-end and did some real studying, instead of allowing his great prejudice against the farming community entirely to blot out his intelligence when he comes to deal with these problems.
This Bill states quite clearly that its purpose is to enable more stock to be reared. It is quite true that the poor old cow has to have the calf and suckle it with milk. In that way, we get the milk

227
going direct to the calf, and it does not assist in any way the production of milk for sale to the public. Anybody who had read the Bill or who had attended the Second Reading or the Committee stage would have discovered that. I would recommend the hon. Member for Wednesbury to sit down occasionally and either to read about these matters, and to digest what he reads, or to discuss them with those who know a bit about the practical side of British agriculture before he gets on to the platform and misleads himself and others regarding it.
We must get down to rock bottom in these things. This is something entirely different from bringing sand and gravel, formed many millions of years ago, out of the earth.
Mr. S. N. Evans: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his lecture and for his rhetorical outburst, which is quite entertaining, but he has done nothing to put at rest my fears that, in fact, a good deal of this £28 million may well go to producing more milk, which is already in plentiful supply.
Mr. Dye: I am sorry if I have not done that.
Mr. Evans: I am not concerned about my hon. Friend, but the Bill does not do it.
Mr. Dye: This really is getting difficult. It is stated quite clearly in the Bill, and the Minister also said it the other day on the Committee stage, that subsidies for the improvement of land would not be paid to any farmers who set out a scheme to produce more milk. Conditions are attached to the grants that are made and those conditions are quite clearly stated. Therefore, if my hon. Friend were unprejudiced he could free his mind of such illusions as he now has.
We must improve our land before it can carry greater quantities of stock, and the improvement of this land for growing grass must involve liming, manuring and draining. All that work is very expensive and the people to do it in these areas are few and far between. One of the most urgent tasks of the Government and of those who are giving attention to this matter is to speed up the availability of labour and materials to carry out the schemes envisaged in this Bill. That is
228
the most urgent matter on which the Minister should try to set at rest the minds of those in this House who are deeply concerned with this problem. The question is how these schemes can be speeded up so that there is a greater output of stock from the farms which will come under the provisions of this Bill.
As we know, we have roughly about 48 million acres of land in Great Britain of which 16 million acres are hills and mountains and heaths which can be improved. But, of course, this Bill will not enable all that land to be improved. The area will be very limited, and that is a point which could be one of legitimate criticism of this Bill. However, that is all the more reason why it is hopelessly wrong to describe this Bill as another Measure to subsidise farmers, since so very few of the total number of farmers will receive for their land any of the money made available here.
There is another limitation to the development of our hill farms for livestock raising. The area that is productive of grass is limited to a short period of the year in the summer, varying in different parts of the country. It is quite impossible to increase the stock-carrying capacity of our hill farms beyond a point at which they can feed the stock which they must have on the farms during the winter months. Therefore, in addition to the efforts envisaged in this Bill, if the purpose of the Bill is to succeed there must come into our hill farming regions sufficient fodder to see them through the winter.
Here is an example of the problem involved. In the highlands in the west of the country and in the north they are so short of fodder that they are paying a tremendous price for straw to be carried for 300 or 400 miles in an effort to keep the animals alive on those hills. Therefore, there must be an enormous effort if we are to develop our hill farms to the fullest capacity. But I hope that hon. Members, whatever their prejudices against farming, will not take this opportunity, or any other opportunity, to try and widen the gulf or to increase the feeling that exists between town and country people.
Our whole purpose should be to secure a united effort in this country to overcome this food problem, not on a

229
short-term basis. but on a very long-term basis; and the idea that the farming community is fattening on the money taken out of the taxpayers is all wrong. The farmers and their men have to work very hard to produce the stock and the meat that this country requires. There was never a time when it was more necessary that there should be a fellow-feeling between town and country, and a feeling of thankfulness to those who live in the hill lands and who try to overcome our food shortage.
This is not the time to stir up prejudice or hatred, but a time to see that those who are now short of meat appreciate still further the efforts of those who have toiled on our farms in the years gone by. Those of us who have been brought up on the land and who have worked long hours know full well the sacrifices involved. I am indeed thankful that there are still in our hill lands people who are willing to endure hardships and to carry on the work of the rearing of stock in the less comfortable parts of the country. We should pay our tribute to them. In speeding this Bill through the House we should also ask the Minister to do his utmost to speed up the schemes that will come before him under the Bill.
4.46 p.m.
Sir Ian Fraser: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) has made himself famous or infamous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—with his "feather-bedding" speech. I do not want to devote much time to this or to be controversial. I only want to correct one of the statements he made, which, I think, was less than fair to the farming community.
He spoke of vast millions which go to the farmers. The great part of the subsidies paid by the taxpayers in this connection go to help the people in the towns, to give them their food at lower prices than they would otherwise pay. A great part also goes to farm workers and to those who live indirectly on and by the land. I admired very much the closing words of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), who pleaded that none of us should do anything to exacerbate feeling between town and country at a time like the present.
Whether the next few years involve war or peace, it is quite certain that a war-
230
time economy is to be our portion, and in these circumstances we must grow more of our own food in these islands. Our land is not increasing, for a variety of reasons; rather, that part of our land which is available for food production generally decreases. The Army, Navy and the Royal Air Force are constantly making incursions into the land. The building industry very often takes land which is the best pasture. The coal mining industry takes land and disables it for many years, and for all these reasons the amount of land that is available for cultivation becomes less.
Therefore, we have to look to hill land and so-called marginal land and see what we can do to make them more fertile. It is obvious that certain land which is on the margin of economic productivity can be made to come down on the right side of that margin if rather more capital is induced to go into it than otherwise would be the case.
There are some four million acres in this country which, if a relatively moderate amount of money were spent on them, could be made to produce large amounts of meat, possibly as much as 400,000 cattle a year. That represents half the total import from the Argentine in normal times, and, of course, it is much more than we are importing now. That amount could be obtained from the marginal land if it were made economically wise and desirable to spend capital on putting the land in proper shape.
The question for the nation to decide is whether this is worthwhile on strategic grounds, social grounds or on any grounds. There is also the question of whether it is equitable to put money into land which is in private hands and to augment the earning power of the farmers in this country. Perhaps I may be allowed to point out, in defence of this policy, that we are interfering with the economic law so far as it affects farmers, sometimes to their advantage and sometimes to their disadvantage. In general, the policy of the last 10 years has been very greatly to their advantage but there are occasions upon which it can be shown to be dramatically to their disadvantage.
This is one of those times. At Question Time today one of the Ministers told us that British wool was being bought for 25 pence a pound from those who grow it and sold at 125 pence to those

231
who buy it. There is a gap of 100 pence, because of the present day value of the wool, and that 100 pence is not going to the men who grow the wool. Obviously, many millions of pounds are in the market today and could be obtained by the British farmer and by those who work on the land and are interested in the land if there were a free market in meat and wool.
British meat has always enjoyed a better price in this country than other meat, and for good reasons. We deny that better price to these men; the turn of the wheel which is in their favour is denied them. It should not be a matter for criticism, therefore, if the policy of organising this industry and aiding it from time to time leads to expenditure of the kind contemplated in the Bill. My only complaint about the Bill is that it does not go far enough; that it is not bold enough in covering sufficient of the land which could be improved; and that it is too late and should have been introduced five or six years ago—and I said so myself in this House and in the country, so I cannot be accused of being wise only after the event.
I welcome the Bill, for I think it is right to try to improve the land. We cannot go on for ever guaranteeing higher and higher prices for the product of all the land in order to encourage the poor land to grow a little more. The only way in which we can economically and reasonably get the poor land and the marginal land to do its best is to direct some capital to that land, and that is what the Bill proposes to do.
One criticism which was made on the Committee stage, and which, I think, it is fair to make on Third Reading, is that large and comprehensive schemes have to be undertaken by farmers or groups of farmers before they can obtain grants under this Measure. In parts of the country, and in the Lake District which I represent, there are very many small farmers capable only of capital expenditure which is small by comparison with the amounts contemplated in the Bill. These are large amounts to come out of the farmer's pocket. I hope that in interpreting his powers under the Bill the Minister will not insist upon the schemes which rank for grant
232
being so large that these small men are completely cut off from the assistance which could be given.
I agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, that we owe a debt to those who work on the land, and especially to those who work on the difficult land. I therefore welcome this Measure which proposes to give them some help.
4.56 p.m.
Mr. M. Philips Price: It is clear from this debate and from earlier stages of our proceedings that the Bill meets with general approval from all those who know and understand the problems of the land and, particularly, the problems of upland farming. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) made some criticism, saying that this action might have been taken before. We should all have liked to see it taken before, but I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that we have had various crises in recent years, and on several occasions—in 1947, and again in the dollar crisis of 1949—we had to undertake various economies in capital expenditure. The Government undertook those economies and the cry of the Opposition in those days was that they were not enough. They wanted more economies. I can quite well understand why we have not had a Measure of this kind earlier.
It is true that we could have spent money in this way instead of spending it on developments in the colonial territories, as, for instance, on the groundnut scheme. I am no defender of the way in which the groundnut scheme was carried out, but I suggest that it is not right to argue that we should neglect, or should not pay too much attention to, colonial development. It all has to take its place. I am glad that there is both colonial development and home development; it is difficult to draw the line between the two.
I am pleased that we now have a comprehensive Measure. Of course, it will not be easy to differentiate between the types of land concerned. The Bill draws the line of limitation between those areas of land which will be eligible for assistance and those which will not. Heath-land is included within the Bill. I can conceive that there may be areas of land in my constituency, in the Forest of Dean,

233
which many people will think ought to be brought within the Bill, and I am not clear whether they will be within the Bill or not. It appears that eligibility will have something to do with proximity to hills and mountains. There is land in the Forest of Dean which rises to nearly 1,000 feet and which is also heath, but I cannot say whether the Bill will apply to it.
There will certainly be marginal cases, but I am sure the Bill will work out for the best in the long run. Nor do I worry about any particular assistance which may be given under the Bill towards the production of milk in the uplands. A safeguard is provided in that connection in Clause 1 (3, a), which defines types of assistance. Moreover, the Minister told us at a previous stage of the Bill that money will not be given to farmers who apply to improve their buildings for dairy purposes—who apply to construct new milking sheds, and so on.
Money will be provided for other purposes. If it becomes profitable for the lowland farmer to produce beef, and if it becomes more profitable for the upland farmer to rear the stock which can go into the lowlands in order to provide beef, obviously the upland farmer will not go in for milk production. One of the troubles during the inter-war years was that beef was unsaleable at any figure that was reasonable. Milk was in a better position, and upland farmers took to milk through sheer desperation. The position will solve itself by making cattle a better proposition than it has been, because already there is a danger of surplus milk supplies, as we are right up to the target for next year.
Mr. Peter Roberts: Is the hon. Member suggesting that a farmer now producing milk is likely to change over to beef production as a result of these various grants?
Mr. Philips Price: That is quite possible, and I do not see any objection to it. We want now to see emphasis on beef rather than on milk.
I know the West Country and the Welsh borders pretty well. A big trade has been carried on there for years in bringing yearlings down from the uplands into the lowlands for feeding on the better land and turning them into good beef. That is what we want to encourage. If the Bill
234
makes it easy for the upland farmers to produce yearlings, we shall be ready for them at the autumn sales to turn them into beef. It is because we have not had them in sufficient quantities that the beef trade has flagged to a certain extent. As we are getting near saturation point with milk and want to encourage the production of beef herds side by side with milk herds, the Bill is a step in the right direction, and I hope that it will be given a unanimous Third Reading.
5.3 p.m.
Mr. Crouch: I much regret that the reasoned Amendment which was put down by my hon. Friends was ruled out of order. The reason for that Amendment is that the Bill lacks urgency in meeting the present situation. The purpose of the Bill is to give further encouragement to the rearing of livestock in the upland areas. It has always been the custom for the majority of the rearing to take place in the upland areas, and the Bill seeks to enable the farmers living in these upland areas to have such assistance that they can sell store cattle and sheep to the man in the lowland areas at such a price that they can be sold at a profit to the Ministry of Food. It would have been much easier, especially in our present position, if this money had been injected into the price of fat cattle and sheep.
I wish to say how much I regret that politics have been introduced by Members opposite, who have accused us of having done nothing for a great many years. I would remind them that there were several Measures introduced before the last war for assisting the agricultural industry and that the fat stock Bill, which the Minister will remember very well, did a great deal from 1934 onwards to encourage the production of beef cattle. While I respect the appeal made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) for co-operation between town and country on agricultural matters, I hope that the same thing will prevail in the field of politics.
Mr. Ellis Smith: What was the purpose of the Amendment to which the hon. Member has referred?
Mr. Crouch: As it is so urgent to get more meat for the country, and the Bill

235
will not bring about that result as quickly as we think it should, we consider that it would be better to spend the same amount of money in connection with the price structure for fat cattle and sheep. If the price structure were higher it would do much more than the Bill is seeking to achieve. This Bill is merely labelling the British farmer as being given a subsidy which he is not, in fact, receiving. It has been introduced to enable the Ministry of Food to maintain the price of meat at a figure in line with the cost-of-living index.
We have been told that before the war we produced only one-third of the meat consumed in the country, whereas today we are producing 50 per cent. Hon. Members opposite have forgotten what was said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) the other day, about the amount of meat that was consumed per head of the population before the war compared with today. It is easy to draw that distinction if we disregard the amount of meat that is being consumed today as compared with before the war. If we are to increase the amount of meat for consumption in the country, we should do it on a price basis and not in the way proposed in the Bill.
5.8 p.m.
Dr. Barnett Stross: Having listened to what has been said so far, I should like immediately to say that I support the Third Reading and do so with more pleasure and enthusiasm than I can remember in regard to the Third Reading of any other Bill I have seen pass through the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and I have been consulting each other, and we have discovered that there are two or three farms in the middle of the great industrial city which is in our area. Therefore, we feel that we have an interest in this Measure and want to support the principle behind the Bill. Of course, we all want to see more meat production and to have better quality of meat than we have been accustomed to having from abroad.
The hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser)—I am sorry that he is not in his place—spoke of the Bill as being only half a loaf and of the con-
236
ditions of the uplands. He said that the Government and the Minister had not been vigorous enough. It was rather like Rip Van Winkle starting to make a speech in the House in 1886 and, having slept ever since, then continuing his speech from where he left off as soon as he opened his eyes.
But of all Governments that cannot be said of this one. If one looks at the matter historically—I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me—it is an old sin which has been perpetrated against our people and our country. Every one understands that previous Governments a long time ago—50, 60 or 70 years ago—wanted cheap labour and cheap goods in order to export them all over the world. They felt that the right way to do that was to bring in cheap food from abroad. We got cheap frozen meat and cheap white bread made of flour down to 70 per cent. extraction. Our people fell sick nationally, and their sickness continued until we understood nationally what sort of sin we had collectively perpetrated against them.
Our nutritional knowledge was not then such as to enable anyone to know what was going to come of that. I say that in case anyone thinks I am casting any particular blame. But it could not have been this Minister or this Government who were at fault. For the first time they are taking really active steps to make the uplands prosperous once again.
This "half a loaf" which has been mentioned should be an inspiration to other countries to imitate us, because we are moving faster than most of the other countries of the world. I remember that as long ago as 1945, in my maiden speech, I reminded the House of the problems that must arise all over the world in connection with the obtaining of food for the world as a whole. I said that the time was coming when countries which had normally exported cheap food would not be able to do so to the same extent any longer, and that countries that had been accustomed to importing cheap food would not get it but must produce it for themselves. Of course, that applies to us. I said that the world as a whole must double the amount of food available for the world, and that nothing but science married to agriculture, and co-operation between town and country and between one country and another could possibly achieve that.

237
I have heard a good deal about the danger of milk production being increased beyond our power to consume milk. That is nonsense. We must be rather careful, and I beg the Minister to bear in mind the need to ensure that we do not spend too much effort and money on the production and, therefore, the eating of flesh as compared with dairy produce. The facts are rather astonishing. People speak of milk and forget that the amount that is consumed depends upon the cost to the consumer. If we want people to drink more milk or to take more in the form of cheese let it be a little cheaper and it will soon be taken up. In Finland, before the war, the average consumption per day per head of the population was two pints; our consumption is still only between three-quarters of a pint and a pint per day—nearer three-quarters of a pint than a pint.
As we are discussing the increase of meat on the hoof and the encouragement of livestock rearing, and if I suggest that we must be a little careful in our planning, I must discuss the possibility that there is another form of agricultural production, milk and dairy produce, which we should not despise. That is as far as I can pursue that point other than to say that we can easily examine the value to the community of, say, cheese as compared with beef. Four ounces of cheese is the equivalent, in protein value as well as in other respects, of eight ounces of steak, seven ounces of herring fish, five ounces of herring roe, a pound of plaice, 130 ounces of oysters or eight eggs. We can at once see that we cannot go far wrong, if there is a lot of milk, if we manufacture it into good cheese. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind, as he is responsible for our home-made cheese as well as for our beef on the hoof.
In my constituency we provide the plates on which the meat goes. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, porcelain is manufactured; in my constituency it is earthenware which is manufactured. We are very conscious of the fact that a plate which is naked and bare is not much use to anybody. If it is well filled it is a very attractive proposition indeed. We rely upon hon. Members who have constituencies in the country where farming is pursued to see to it that the plates which our constituencies produce are well and properly filled.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Nugent: I wish to give a moderate blessing to this Bill on its Third Reading, although it still contains the same defects which it had originally, and which we failed to remove during the Committee stage.
I wish to make one or two comments on the general trend of the debate. I feel that the Bill provides the right method of assisting these special areas, and that it will help to increase stock rearing for beef in the upland marginal areas. I think that the hon. Member for Gloucester, West (Mr. Philips Price) is a little optimistic in expecting that there will be much of a turnover from milk to beef. As I mentioned in our earlier discussions on the Bill, I think that farmers who are already engaged in milk production will be very reluctant to stop the receipt of their monthly milk cheque and depend on perhaps one annual cattle sale for the whole of their income.
I am hopeful of the Minister's assurance on the Committee stage that when the Bill becomes an Act it will be interpreted liberally enough to allow those engaged in milk production to be able to rear some beasts for beef as well as to continue with their milk production. In contradistinction to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch), I do not believe that it would be sufficient to rely entirely on price emphasis. These are special problems, and I think that the kind of approach which the Bill embodies is the right one to adopt.
I wish to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), who gave us his usual entertainment on what he called agricultural economics. They seemed to me more like castles in the air. Indeed, if we really tried to keep two and a half cows to the acre, as the hon. Member suggests are kept by the Dutch, we should literally have to stand one cow on top of the other.
Mr. S. N. Evans: We had better get this point clear. What I said, or intended to say, was that the Dutch support, on a given acreage, two and a half times the number of cows that we, the British do, and that that is due to their better husbandry.
Mr. Nugent: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for that explanation, but he did not say anything of the kind. I have

239
not had the opportunity of checking his figures, so I will leave his remark without comment. But his original statement was completely wrong, as, indeed, are so many of his statements on what he believes to be agricultural economics.
I might, in passing, make the comment about his anxiety on the increase in milk, that provided we have sufficient manufacturing capacity more milk will not be a handicap to us. As has already been said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), we can turn it into cheese; or into butter, dried milk powder, etc. It is true that there is not at present sufficient manufacturing capacity, and that that capacity needs to be increased. Provided that is done it can be well used. The only point which no doubt caused the hon. Member anxiety was that conversion into cheese increases the cost to the Ministry of Food in respect of food subsidies. At the present price of cheese the conversion rate is very expensive.
The hon. Gentleman's remark about constant feather-bedding does him no credit, especially at the present time. He knows as well as I do that the annual price review is about to take place, and these attempts to shake the confidence of the public in the soundness of these negotiations must be harmful to the whole agricultural industry and cannot benefit anybody. Having been a junior Minister, he knows better than most of us how these things work, and he must also know that at present there is hardly a commodity produced in this country whose price is not below prices in other countries—countries with cheaper costs of production, like Canada and the United States. Even wheat in this country is below the prices in those countries, and meat is about one-third of those prices. To suggest that agriculture here is feather-bedded is complete nonsense. It does him no credit; the public outside have a way of believing what hon. Members say in this House, and the hon. Member should be more careful in what he says.
I should like to comment on a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman in his opening speech. He trotted out that dog-eared piece of propaganda about the Conservatives' neglect of agriculture in the pre-war years. It is really most unworthy of him. He knows as well as I do that
240
most of the Measures that were brought forward to help agriculture in the 30s. were opposed by him and his hon. Friends. Yet here we are supporting this Measure, promoted by the present Government, and although we do not agree with everything in it we support it because we know it has an intrinsic benefit for agriculture. If his own record was as good as all that he might be in a position to throw stones at us, but in the circumstances it was an ungracious and unworthy comment. In spite of that, I am supporting the Third Reading of this Bill, which I hope and believe will make a valuable contribution to the industry as a whole.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. James Johnson: We have all enjoyed hearing the modest blessing of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent). I always enjoy listening to him. His speech was couched in felicitous terms, unlike the speeches of the hon. Members for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser), and Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch). I detected in their speeches querulous comments—in fact, a "nattering" note—on this Bill. I should like to add my blessing to the Bill, and in doing so I deprecate the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Dorset, North, who began by talking about the politics which had been introduced by hon. Members on this side of the House.
Mr. Ellis Smith: That is what we are here for.
Mr. Johnson: When I listened to him and looked at the Amendment on the Order Paper—
"To move, that, in view of the Government's failure to supply a reasonable ration to the public or to build up emergency stocks of meat"—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That Amendment was not called, and we cannot discuss it.
Mr. Johnson: I was going to say that it is a good job it was not called, because to me it is purely political, and it does not become hon. Members opposite to accuse us of introducing politics into this debate when they themselves put down an Amendment of that sort, well knowing that it would not be called because it is obviously out of order.
In view of the state of our meat stocks and our external supplies, this Bill

241
deserves our blessing. The emphasis today should be on the production of beef. The war affected our herds and the disastrous weather of 1947 also had an effect upon them. In view of these terrific losses in the last few years, the money being spent—something like £15 million—is well worth spending and will pay dividends in the future. It may seem at first glance a lot of money, but in view of the vast acreages of marginal land which we need to take up—perhaps something between three million and four million acres—I think it is well worth while.
I have spoken in the House in the past, in Colonial debates, of the need to develop the marginal lands in the outlying parts of the Commonwealth and Empire. We have spent a lot of money there—some people think, perhaps a little unwisely—and I think it is now time that we spent wisely upon our own people in this country. Our home needs come first. Our own people will feel the benefit of this investment much more closely and it will be of much more value than some of the money already spent.
I have spoken to experts on marginal land, yet I am not too sure what marginal land is. To my mind much of it must be land which was once in cultivation and has now lapsed. But without going into the past neglect of agriculture, I would say that there must be a considerable amount of land lying between the high altitudes where we get hardy sheep farming, and the lowlands and the valley bottoms mentioned by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). Upon this transition land we should place more emphasis. There must be a large acreage between those high altitudes and the lowland valleys, upon which we could spend this money wisely.
I welcome, in particular, Clause 1, which provides for the extension of the class of land for the improvement of which grants may be made under the Hill Farming Act, 1946. I hope the Minister will interpret this provision wisely and generously, and that grants will be made not merely for the purposes mentioned earlier in the debate, but also for the cultivation of fodder crops and their improvement.
I have heard much argument in the Committee stage about the word "comprehensive." We who are concerned
242
with education are often bothered about the definition of "comprehensive" in connection with our secondary schools, and there seems to be as much difficulty here in defining the word. I only hope that the Minister will be generous in his interpretation of "comprehensive"; I am sure he will be, knowing his past record.
I hope it will be left to local committees—and I emphasise local committees—who are conversant with the local topography and geography, to enable the farmers and owner-occupiers in their localities to achieve the maximum benefit under this scheme. I am sure that the financial assistance which we are now voting to enable these improvements to be carried out on our hill farms and marginal lands, will be well spent.
This Bill, small as some people call it, is immensely significant in terms of human welfare to people in these marginal lands, and also in terms of future additions to our meat supplies.
5.30 p.m.
Captain Duncan: I rise for only one reason and that is to say, as the first Member representing a Scottish constituency to speak in this debate, that I welcome the Bill, and will watch its progress into law, and its administration when it is an Act, with very great interest. Scotland stands to gain very much from the Bill, both from the extension of the definition of "hill" to "down the hill" and the continuation of the hill sheep and cattle subsidy schemes under the Hill Farming Act. I hope that the Bill will do a tremendous lot of good in the upland areas of Scotland.
When I say "upland areas" I want to emphasise, especially to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), that the definition does not necessarily depend on altitude. I say that not only to put right the hon. Member for Rugby, but to put right one of my constituents who heardwrongly—that although he had rough grazing—heath, whins, and that sort of thing—he would not be eligible for grant under a scheme under the Bill because his farm was not at the necessary altitude. I want to make it quite clear that altitude has nothing whatever to do with it. It is the type of land rather than the actual position on the map that matters.
For those reasons I support the Bill, but I recognise that there are blemishes. The first is the administrative blemish

243
which the Minister has not yet seen fit to remove, and that is in the selection of schemes which the Minister has to make under the limit of money allowed by the Treasury and by Parliament. I still do not see how money is to be fairly divided between England and Scotland, and, in England and in Scotland, between the various counties.
What is to happen at the end of the second year when all the £20 million is mortgaged? The right hon. Gentleman will only have to come back, it seems to me, for more—if he is still there. If he is, I hope he will come. If he is not my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) will not fail to come, and he will get the unanimous support of this side of the House. If, however, the Minister tries to spread the £20 million over the next five years by selectivity he will run into a most extraordinary amount of administrative difficulty.
I think it was the hon. Member for Rugby who said he could not define, and did not quite know, what marginal land was. Nor do I. Nor does the Minister. It is one of those things that it is almost impossible to define, and we have to proceed farm by farm, almost, to decide whether a scheme is within or without the Bill; and it will be an administrative headache, not only because of the limit of the definition but also because of the financial limit of £20 million. I shall watch with some anxiety how this works out, because it seems to me it will be extremely difficult.
The second failure in the Bill is the insistence on comprehensiveness. We had a Division on that in Committee, and I need say no more about it now, except that it has held up and is holding up certain schemes on marginal land. Now that we are coming, in the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, "down the hill" a bit we are not meeting vast areas of land: we are meeting a large number of the smaller farms, and to that extent we have to take care more of the small men than under the Hill Farming Act. The smaller men will not have the capital to spend on comprehensive and, therefore, expensive schemes, even though they are spread over five years. That being so, I deplore the fact that this comprehensiveness is still insisted on so strictly.
244
The third weakness—and this will not please hon. Members opposite—is that, under the Hill Farming Act, and now under the Bill, we are still keeping the tie on the service cottage. That has always seemed to me to be a mistake, and to have been the subject of a good deal of misrepresentation. It is a pity that in these isolated places these cottages should become untied before a grant can be made. However, in spite of those three blemishes I welcome the Bill on behalf of Scotland, and I am sure that it will do a lot of good.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Pryde: Coming, as I do, from a constituency with a very large rural area which features every form of agricultural activity, I should like to commend the Minister for this fine contribution to his monumental work on behalf of our people. Members on both sides of the House talked glibly of 16 million acres of hill land. They forgot to point out that 11 million of those are in Scotland, and that we run stock in Scotland at higher altitudes than anywhere else in Britain. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) has indicated, we stand to gain materially in Scotland by this Measure. One hon. Member said that our stocks suffered incalculable damage in 1947. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sheep."] They suffered incalculable damage in every form of agriculture long before 1947.
I am surprised at the carping criticisms from hon. Members on the other side. If they care to look back into the official reports they will find that between the world wars there was less land under cultivation in Scotland, and that there were fewer people on the land in Scotland, than from 1870. It was not until a majority Labour Government came in that hope was revived in agriculture in Scotland, and if hon. Members care to look at the returns in the bankruptcy courts in Scotland they will see the truth of what I say reflected in the fact that there are fewer farmers going into those courts now than ever before in history. In my own constituency upland farmers have had the benefit of the Hill Farming Act, passed in the last Parliament, and I am sure that they will derive benefit from this Measure.

245
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Angus talked of the possibility of the Minister's not being here at the end of five years. If the test is the opinion of Scottish agriculture, then I am certain that my right hon. Friend will again be speaking for agriculture. I hope and trust that hon. Members will not, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) did, shout for more, because we have to remember that there are other people in Britain besides those in the agricultural industry. There are people who reckon that they themselves are just as important. But our national economy begins on the land because that is the source of all wealth, and I think that the Government are to be congratulated on putting the farming industry into a healthy economic state for the first time in my lifetime, at least—and I was not born yesterday.
5.39 p.m.
Major McCallum: I represent one of the areas most likely to benefit from this Bill, and I want to say a few words before we give it a Third Reading. There is no doubt that already the Hill Farming Act, 1946, has brought considerable benefits to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and I would point out again, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) did just now, that this not a question of altitude at all, for in my own constituency there is many a hill sheep farmer whose land at one end is washed by the waves of the Atlantic, and is 2,000 or 3,000 feet above the waves at the other end.
We are not blessed in the Highlands and Islands with those valuable lowlands to which the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) referred. I can assure him when he talks about "agricultural economics" that in the Highlands agricultural economics were such that it was very difficult to find anyone who was showing any profit. I deprecate the use of the Third Reading of this Bill for indulging in political arguments and criticisms on one side or the other. We all know that this Bill will have considerable effect on and benefit to the country—I am speaking particularly of the Highlands of Scotland—and I deprecate the introduction of politics. The right hon. Gentleman started it himself this after-
246
noon, and one hon. Member after another has continued it.
It is not for us now to argue who was at fault in failing to support agriculture sufficiently in the past 100 years, because it is not since the beginning of the century but for the past 100 years that agriculture has not been supported sufficiently. I welcome this Bill, which I think will do a great deal of good to our marginal land. I ask whoever replies to tell us what will now be the hill sheep subsidy for this year.
5.42 p.m.
Mr. Gooch: Representing a very large rural area with a good livestock record, I have much pleasure in joining in the general welcome that has been given to this Bill, and without reservation I support its Third Reading. This Bill is in strict accord with the Government's agricultural policy that the country has been enjoying for the past six years. It has been said that the Bill lacks urgency, but I think that the whole agricultural legislation of the previous Labour Government and of this Labour Government is, in a sense, linked up with urgency all the way through. I am glad that at this stage the Minister has presented this Bill in its present form, and, despite certain criticisms in Committee, I am delighted to think that there is no possibility of a Division, and that it will receive a unanimous Third Reading.
I do not want to discuss the Amendment which has been referred to, because it has not been called. I merely say that I think the motive behind it is not indicated by its wording. A sore point with hon. Members opposite is the fact that the Minister resisted their attempt in Committee to perpetuate the tied cottage system, and I thank the Minister for resisting the Amendment which sought to make service cottages qualify for improvements under this Bill. I am glad he had a straight statement on that issue, and I thank my colleagues for making certain when there was a Division in Committee that that Amendment was not accepted.
It has been suggested that the livestock industry cannot be expanded without long-term planning. I think that nearly all the agricultural legislation of this Government has been aimed at long-term

247
planning, and I am certain that, comparing conditions in the agricultural industry today with what they were in the inter-war years—I know hon. Members opposite do not like our referring to those days, but we insist upon doing so—there is more confidence and much more security than there was under Tory rule.
I listened to some of the speeches in Committee on the production of milk, when it was said that some of our farmers had gone milk crazy. I do not subscribe to that doctrine, because I know very well that the increased production of milk has been valued greatly in the homes of the people and in the schools. But I will say that I think it is the time some of the farmers in the arable counties ceased producing quite so much milk and got back to livestock rearing. It can be done without harming the individual farms, and I am pretty certain that emphasis on livestock rearing would be welcomed, not only by the Minister but by the country. In conclusion, I am glad this Bill is in strict accord with Government agricultural policy. I think it will do a lot of good and will help materially to assist meat production in this country. With all my heart I commend the Bill to the farming community.
5.46 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: I rise to make two points. As the Minister himself said, there is a world shortage of meat, and this Bill will do something to help to improve the position. One of the factors helping to create a world shortage of meat is the policy of fixed prices and rations, and, in the words of the Minister of Food, the policy of holding down the price of meat. There is no doubt that to succeed this Measure must be accompanied by a reasonable price for meat, and the House should consider what would be the position in the world today, and in this country in particular, if we had not got a comparatively low fixed price for meat.
It is now generally accepted in this country that the production and fattening of beef in winter is a thing of the past. Why should it be a thing of the past? There must be plenty of people who would be prepared and would prefer to pay 3s. a 1b. for prime English beef rather than buy rabbits at 7s. 6d. a piece, or
248
paying more than 4s. a 1b. for chicken meat. But that opportunity is now denied them; people are not given the opportunity of spending their money on good beef. That is a point that needs considering.
We cannot depart entirely from the laws of supply and demand and allow the consumer no opportunity of expressing his desires by buying his food. No doubt hon. Members opposite will say that what we want are expensive cuts for our "rich friends." I know quite well from my own experience that in mining villages at home, where there is plenty of money about, a great deal of expensive unrationed food is gladly bought, such as chickens, rabbits and anything else they can get in the way of canned ham. I therefore ask the Minister to consider whether he could not give a better price still for winter fattened beef so that it would again be in production. That would ease the glut which now falls on the slaughterhouses in the late summer and autumn.
The only other point to which I wish to refer is the assertion by many hon. Members that we are now producing too much milk. That is, in a way, relevant to this Measure. In my opinion, we cannot possibly produce too much milk, and the Minister should attend to that. The one thing that is holding back livestock production in this country in the form of pigs and chickens is lack of protein, and the very best source of protein in the world is milk. If we in this country could start a proper butter and cheese industry we should have all the milk by-products we needed to produce a great deal more protein than we are now doing, which would to a very great extent stimulate the production of pigs, chickens and eggs, and other animals for whom animal protein is an essential.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. T. Williams: I can only speak again with the leave of the House. As there have not been many major points raised during the debate, and as there is a good deal of other business to be dealt with, I think that it would be a mistake on my part to attempt to speak for more than a minute to indicate that I have no intention of being discourteous to hon. Members who have spoken.
I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett)

249
made a very dangerous suggestion when he put to me the proposition that because there is a grave shortage of meat we ought to decontrol the price of meat and allow it to find its own level. It is obvious that if we did that those people with the deepest purse would get what bit of meat there was and those with modest purses would get none at all.
Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: I made no suggestion that the price of meat should be decontrolled. I said that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the situation which would arise if that were the case, and that if this Measure is to be effective it must be accompanied by an increase in the price emphasis given to meat as compared with the price emphasis given to other products. If he takes a reasonable view of that, he may come to the right conclusion instead of the wrong one.
Mr. Williams: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I understood him to say that we ought to allow the law of supply and demand to operate.
The other suggestion which he made of putting an increase on the end product would, I think, be equally useless. Certainly, we could put a penny per 1b. on beef, but there is no guarantee that after spending £5 million per annum we should get one extra 1b. of meat produced, and there would be none of the improvements which we are contemplating under the improvement schemes of this Bill. If we want more meat in this country we can only secure it by encouraging the breeder and the rearer, and not by putting money on the end product, which gives no guarantee of any extra meat at all.
I am very encouraged by the reception of the Bill, and I hope that every hon. Member who has spoken this afternoon, from whatever side of the House, will agree that the Bill in the long-term will have very useful results. I hope, therefore, that we can now have a unanimous Third Reading.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Considered in Committee. [Progress, 24th January.]
[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL

  Clause 12.—(APPREHENSION OF OFFENDERS.)
  5.51 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, to leave out "officer," and to insert "person."
  I think that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with similar Amendments in lines 39, 41 and 48 standing in the name of my right hon. Friend. These are merely drafting Amendments, the purpose of which was explained at an earlier stage in the proceedings.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: In page 5, line 39, leave out "officer," and insert "person."—[The Lord Advocate.]
  Lord Dunglass: The Committee will remember that on subsection (2) we raised the matter of the owner of fishings being taken out of the classes of persons who may apprehend an offender under this Bill. Subsection (3) applies to the Tweed and raises the same kind of issue. I do not want to repeat all the arguments which I used on that occasion.
  The Lord Advocate: On a point of order. As the noble Lord has said, practically the same argument was advanced when we were discussing the deletion of subsection (2), and at that time it was suggested from the Chair, and the noble Lord agreed, that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed the two Amendments together—the deletion of subsection (2) and the deletion of subsection (3). We proceeded to do so, and we went to a Division on the question of the deletion of subsection (2). I was under the impression that there was a ruling at the time that we were discussing these Amendments together, and that all that was left in connection with this Amendment was whether or not it should be passed.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The noble Lord said, when I suggested that the two Amendments should be discussed together, that he agreed. I thought that it would be convenient to discuss them together.
  Lord Dunglass: I have some new arguments to propose. Perhaps I could put them on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Brigadier Thorp: There is a legal point in connection with the subsection which I should like to raise.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman might raise that on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 41, leave out "officer" and insert "person."
  In line 48, leave out "officer" and insert "person."—[The Lord Advocate.]
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Brigadier Thorp: There is a legal point which I would like cleared up. Subsection (3) says:
  "No person other than a water bailiff, constable or officer appointed as aforesaid …"
  I am not clear to what the words "as aforesaid" refer. Section 38 of the Tweed Fisheries Act, 1857, deals with the powers of superintendents or bailiffs, and the only mention of the person "aforesaid" comes in Clause 37 of the Tweed Fisheries Act which, I understand, if the Schedules to this Bill are agreed to, will be annulled. Therefore, I am wondering to what this "aforesaid" refers. Who are these people who are appointed, and how are they appointed? Presumably, they are not appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Are they appointed by the Tweed Commissioners? Perhaps the Lord Advocate would clear that matter up.
  Lord Dunglass: I think that it would be useful in view of later Amendments if the Lord Advocate would say something about the position of the riparian owner and other individuals who have been taken out of the classes of persons who can apprehend offenders, as they used to do, under the 1868 Act. What is
  252
  the owner of a fishing to do if he comes across poachers with their gear, and there is evidence on the spot that they are offending against the Act? As the Bill is at present, it would seem that all the owner can do, if he is not to commit an offence himself, is to go to the police, but by that time the poacher will have decamped with his gear. It seems to me that it might be worse than that. A poacher might be able to defy the riparian owner and the owner of the fishings, and, as I understand that there is no law of trespass in Scotland, it would seem that the owner would have to go through the process of interdict before he could take any action.
  These are matters of law, and it would be interesting to hear from the Lord Advocate why under this Clause he takes from the owner of property the right to apprehend persons, and whether he does not think that that is a mistake. This is a Bill designed to make it easier to apprehend poachers, but this Clause will, in fact, make it more difficult. If the Lord Advocate would give us his advice on the matter we should be grateful, and it would influence perhaps our actions in further stages of this Measure.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Williams: When we discussed this matter before, the Secretary of State rejected an Amendment by doing which I thought he rather weakened this Clause. He made a somewhat interesting statement on that occasion, as follows:
  "As far as I know, no one, certainly in recent years, has employed the 1868 Act, which the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) finds so attractive and so essential." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1951; VOL. 483, c. 263.]
  As far as I am personally concerned I have found it neither attractive nor essential. On the other hand, I think that it is necessary, with such wide areas as there are in the Highlands, that we should give powers to apprehend to anyone who is outside immediate communication either with the police or with the water bailiffs. I was surprised to hear that no one had used the powers in the 1868 Act for a long period. What I was not surprised at was that the Lord Advocate was unable to answer a question I had put as to whether there had been any abuse of these powers.

  253
  If the Government are really looking at this Clause in the interests of the Bill and necessary for the purposes of the Bill, they could make it more satisfactory if that power of apprehension were included. Salmon are an essential food supply and it is necessary that there should be some such powers to protect water courses, which may be five to 20 miles from a policeman or from where a water bailiff is to be found. Anyone who sees these pools being blown up should have the power to stop the miscreant and hold him until assistance is procured either from the police or from the water bailiffs.
  I do not think that that power has been abused. The ordinary decent Scotsman, who is keen in looking after the food supplies of the nation and who dislikes fishing by these illegal methods, would not abuse these powers, and it would be a pity if between now and the Report stage we did not get this matter looked into very fully, so that it would be possible to keep in this Bill the power to see that everything possible is done to protect this extraordinary valuable source of food. I am one of the very last persons to urge that there should be excessive penalties or excessive powers of arrest. On this question on the last occasion I was attacked by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have no intention of replying to that attack, but I think the right hon. Gentleman should not get himself all hot and bothered because it is suggested that the Government should meet the position at some later stage of the Bill.
  I suggest to the Government that they should make this Bill watertight by following the course which I have suggested. As this Clause stands, there is a hole in it. There should be some protection for those spawning grounds to which the salmon go, and which are so often in quiet and lonely places away from police protection. It can only be given if this power is vested in other persons as well as the police and water bailiffs. I welcome what the Government are doing, and I have no hostile intent towards their Bill. In my opinion, however, this omission is a grave defect in the Bill, and I suggest that the Government should consult people like the water bailiffs and those who are to administer this Bill to see whether they agree with the views that have been put forward in
  254
  regard to these arrest powers. I am glad to have had the opportunity on this Clause to emphasise what I think is a very weak spot.
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp) was greatly perturbed about the meaning of the word "aforesaid" in subsection (3). That "aforesaid" refers to appointments made by the Secretary of State in pursuance of Clause 10. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the opening words of Clause 12 (2) he will see that the various people are set out in extenso. In subsection (3) we find that the same people, the water bailiff, the constable and the officer are appointed "as aforesaid." That "aforesaid" has relation to subsection (2) and that is the beginning and end of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's difficulty.
  Brigadier Thorp: What powers has the Secretary of State to appoint officers in England?
  The Lord Advocate: The point is that any person who is appointed here under Clause 10 by the Secretary of State is appointed to cover any parts of the river covered by the Bill. The district board, if I recollect properly, which deals with the stretch of the Tweed which runs into England is exactly the same board as that which deals with that part of the Tweed which runs in Scotland. Therefore, an officer if he were appointed in that area would have the same power as if he were appointed a water bailiff by the district board, only that he would be appointed by the Secretary of State as one of the officers in pursuance of the powers conferred by Clause 10.
  The noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) asked me to explain why we were departing from the general statutory powers which were conferred by the 1868 Act on persons to effect arrests. We discussed this fairly fully on the Amendment to delete subsection (2) of this Clause, and I do not want to reiterate the arguments at any great length. The Committee must appreciate that when this Statutory right of arrest was conferred under the 1868 Act, the police force was not of the same nature as the police force today. The power to employ water bailiffs was presumably not as extensive as it is at the present time.

  255
  Accordingly, we cannot take the criterion of 1868 as the criterion of 1951.
  Captain Duncan: Nor can the poachers.
  The Lord Advocate: Unfortunately, and unlike the hon. Gentleman, my experience of poachers does not go back to 1868. We have to try to balance the rights of individuals to have their property protected and the rights of the citizen. Why we decided to confine the powers of the Clause to the various people referred to was that each of them is a person with some ostensible authority, such as a police constable, a water bailiff or an officer appointed by the Secretary of State, each with a warrant of authority. They can produce their warrant of authority and thereby effect an arrest better than it can be done by a person without any such ostensible authority.
  If a person without ostensible authority went up to a person who was fishing in a particular stretch of river, and who might or might not be committing a criminal offence under the Bill, and said, "I am going to take you down to the local police station in order to charge you," we might be involving ourselves in a great deal of trouble. As I indicated at an earlier stage, we might have other charges involving breaches of the peace. We have to take such factors into consideration.
  Accordingly, we thought it desirable and justifiable that, in re-enacting the powers in this year of Grace, 1951, we should have greater regard to the conditions applying today as against those which applied in 1868, and we should take into account the very important factors to which I have referred. We must recognise that under the Bill we are extending the powers of the various officers in relation to the power of search without a warrant. If we are to give power of arrest to the people suggested by the noble Lord, it seems equally logical to give them the power of search. If we examine that proposition again, I think the Committee will appreciate what trouble might arise if a person without any ostensible badge of authority sought to operate the power of search without a warrant. It is principally for those reasons that we have decided to restrict the Clause in the present Bill.
  256
  The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) wondered if there was any evidence of abuse of these powers in the past. There has not been to my knowledge any evidence of abuse, largely for the reason explained by my right hon. Friend that there has not been any use. If there has been no use, there is not likely to have been any abuse.
  Mr. C. Williams: I thank the Lord Advocate for giving way. Does he really mean that there has never been a case where someone poaching salmon in Scottish rivers has been stopped and handed over to the police? I can hardly believe that that has never happened, when there has been stealing on a considerable scale. I think I have heard, even on this Bill, people say that men have been trying to stop poaching. Was there not an occasion where there was some trouble about a net.
  The Lord Advocate: I am coming to the point which the hon. Gentleman anticipates. I am not saying that there were not prosecutions, but in many cases they were due to the activities of district boards, water bailiffs or the Fishmongers' Company with which the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) is associated as prime warden. It was through the agency of these bodies that prosecution took place. I cannot give with the same authority the answer I might give in other circumstances, because many of these prosecutions were private and not public. The knowledge at my disposal relates only to public prosecutions.
  Private prosecutions do not come through my department and are not examined by my officials. I cannot speak with the same authority in relation to private prosecutions. Certainly there has not been a great number, and those which have taken place have been instigated by boards or other interested bodies whose employees have been successful in collecting the necessary evidence to institute proceedings.
  As far as I know—and I say this with the qualification that I do not know of these cases of private prosecution but only of cases of public prosecution—there has been no great handicap occasioned in the obtaining of evidence merely because the owner would not have the right to effect an arrest. Weighing the balance of advantage against disadvantage, and having in

  257
  mind the trouble that might be created by giving this power to people who have no ostensible authority, the Committee may feel that we are wise in restricting the power of the Clause to these persons.
  Mr. C. Williams: I again thank the Lord Advocate for giving way, and I appreciate what he has said. I am sure, from the speeches we have heard before, that there is a great deal of substance in the point he has made, but I want to ask whether, between now and the Report stage, the Lord Advocate will go into this matter again and see whether it is possible to meet us in some way. I am not asking for extreme measures, but that he shall look at the matter with a view to meeting the point of view which has been put forward.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Roberts: I hesitate to intervene in this Debate, except on a question of principle. The Lord Advocate has apparently put forward a query that one must have a badge of authority in order to effect an arrest.
  The Lord Advocate: No.
  Mr. Roberts: I am sorry, but I understood him to say so.
  The Lord Advocate: I did not say "a person without a badge of authority." What I said was that without a badge of authority a person trying to effect an arrest might create a great deal of trouble which could not be foreseen.
  Mr. Roberts: That is the idea, but perhaps I was wrong in point of detail. I see a difficulty. Why should not the owner have the authority. All he has to do is to say, "I am the owner," and having said that he would have the right of arrest. He takes the poacher to the local police station. I may be asked what happens if he is wrong and is not the owner. I assume that the person arrested would have a case for wrongful arrest against him just as in the case where a man says, "I am a policeman, and I am going to arrest you."
  The Lord Advocate: Does the hon. Gentleman know of any policeman in plain clothes who does not carry a warrant of authority about with him?
  Mr. Roberts: The argument is that a person who has not a warrant of
  258
  authority cannot make an arrest. Is that the suggestion?
  The Lord Advocate: We are talking about statutory power. If a constable is not in uniform and is not on duty he is not a constable within the meaning of the Bill.
  Mr. Roberts: I am trying to get over a question of principle, which is that the owner is in a particular position of authority. If, for the purposes of the Bill, it should be suggested that he should carry something on him to show that he is the owner, and if that is the only difficulty which the Government have, it may be that the difficulty can be got over in that way. To say that the owner is not a person of particular authority to deal with people who go upon his land seems an extraordinary argument and one that I should like to oppose now as being the first time that I have heard it.
  Lord Dunglass: We are not really satisfied on this and should like the Lord Advocate to look at it again before the Report stage. He has based his objection to including the owner of the fishings in the classes of person who are entitled to apprehend largely on the fact that the owner has no badge of authority. One way might be for the Secretary of State to nominate all riparian owners. We do not particularly press this procedure. We feel that there has been no abuse since 1868 by owners of this privilege and right.
  If it is of any interest to the Lord Advocate, I apprehended a poacher the other day with a good deal of trepidation. He was shooting without a gun licence, a game licence or anything. He would have got away if I had had to go and collect a policeman. We feel that the owner on the spot, particularly of a river bank, is in a position to help to apprehend offenders, which is, after all, the object of the Lord Advocate's own Bill—to make apprehension easier. Without pressing this any more at this stage, we should be grateful if the Lord Advocate would look into ways and means of helping us in something about which we feel strongly.
  The Lord Advocate: This proposal is much narrower than that in the Amendment which was moved originally. The existing law gives the power of arrest to any person whomsoever. All I under-

  259
  stand the noble Lord to be pressing for is the inclusion of the owner somewhere or other. I will certainly give an undertaking to look at this more limited aspect of the subject before the concluding stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: It might also arise that someone had a lease, however short, of the fishing and might be the tenant most directly interested for a short period? Would he have the same power, being the most directly interested party at the time?
  Mr. Mitchison (Kettering): I would ask the Lord Advocate to bear one possibility in mind. The limit between the land of one owner and another and the limit between the fishing of one owner and another is not always certain. It is possible that there might be a mistake. The Lord Advocate should make certain that he includes power for one owner to arrest another.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 13.—(EXTENSION OF WEEKLY CLOSE TIME.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Deputy-Chairman: A proposed new Clause to take the place of this one appears later on the Order Paper. This Question should be negatived.
  Mr. James Stuart: Shall we be able to have a full discussion later on?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be more convenient to have the discussion when the new Clause is proposed. It is proposed to delete this Clause.
  Question put, and negatived.

  Clause 14.—(PACKAGES OF SALMON OR TROUT TO BE MARKED.)
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, after "salmon," to insert "sea trout."
  It might be convenient to the Committee if I pointed out that my remarks are equally applicable to similar Amendments to lines 19, 20, 29, 30, 32 and 36.
  260
  The Clause contains a requirement that packages consigned or sent by any common or other carrier should be marked with the word "salmon" or "trout." "Salmon" is defined in the interpretation Clause as including "sea trout," but, on reflection, we consider that packages of sea trout should be marked as such. Accordingly the Amendment provides that. It probably forstalls an Amendment on the paper in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in line 21, at end, insert:
  "Provided that it shall not be an offence to call a sea-trout a 'sea-trout' even on the outside of a package."
  Mr. Mitchison: After thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his kind remarks, I should like to point out to him that the sea trout now occupies a singularly privileged position, because if there is any uncertainty, as there sometimes is with a sizable fish, whether it is a sea trout or a salmon, we can safely call the sea trout either "salmon" or "sea trout" since both words include the sea trout. If, however, it proves to be a salmon, then at the risk of fine and imprisonment we have to identify it as such.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments made.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, to leave out "officers," and to insert "persons."
  This Amendment and two similar Amendments in lines 23 and 37 are merely drafting, and their purpose has already been explained.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments made.—[The Lord Advocate.]
  Brigadier Thorp: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, at the end, too add:
  (4) This section shall not apply to so much of the River Tweed as is situated outwith Scotland.
  This is a very legal point. Clause 24 (2) says:
  "Save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided this Act shall extend only to Scotland."
  Clause 20 (2) says:
  "This Act … shall apply to so much of the River Tweed as is situated outwith Scotland as if it were situated in Scotland."

  261
  Am I right in thinking that the Clause brings the law of Scotland into line with the law of England? In England it is now—and has been since 1923—compulsory to label all packages "salmon," "trout" or whatever it is. It is wise to bring the law of Scotland into line with the law of England because this could not possibly have been applied to the North of England as it is now as there are so many places not on the river banks where salmon could have been consigned by carrier which could not possibly have been reached by water bailiffs and others of that sort. I hope the Lord Advocate will agree with me that this is merely bringing the law of Scotland into line with the law of England.
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is correct in saying that what we propose to do in Clause 14 is already the law in England by virtue of Section 34 of the 1923 Act. I do not know if he wants me to deal with his Amendment. After all, the Clause deals with the consignment or sending by a common or other carrier of any salmon, sea trout or trout. I do not quite know why the hon. Gentleman wants to exclude the River Tweed. Its exclusion would only mean that we could not consign or send salmon, sea trout or trout on the River Tweed. The Amendment would have no applicability. I hope that with that explanation the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be satisfied.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I called that Amendment by mistake, so I hope the hon. and gallant Member will ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw it.
  Brigadier Thorp: I only moved it, Sir Charles, to get the point of law right. Therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 16.—(PENALTIES.)
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, to leave out from "exceeding," to "fifty," in line 13.
  262
  The purpose of this Amendment is twofold: first, to bring the Clause into line with the law in England, that is, Section 74 of the English Act of 1923: second, to bring it into line with the recommendation made by paragraph 64 of the Maconochie Report. There seems to be little justification for having a separate law applying to the two sides of the Border or, as in my own constituency, to two parts of the same constituency.
  I need not say much about this Amendment except possibly to anticipate an argument that may be put forward by the Lord Advocate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said during the Committee stage that he intended to set up, as it were, three tiers of punishments. This Amendment would not affect to any extent the three tiers except to make it possible, though not mandatory, to impose a higher penalty for a first offence. It will also clear up the wording of the Clause where it is not clear whether it is possible or not to impose imprisonment for the first offence. So far as indictment is concerned, the difference between the two penalties will, of course, remain —the penalties imposed for the graver offences of using noxious materials, explosives, and so forth.
  I feel that it is a little fussy to have two separate penalties and to insist on this step in the three tiers. I hope, therefore, that the Lord Advocate will accept the Amendment, knowing full well that the courts will not impose an excessive penalty on the first offence unless there is a really good justification for it.
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) has already given in substance the answer to this Amendment. It is no use saying that we should bring this Clause into line with the English Act of 1923 because that Act had in it an omnibus section dealing with the penalties for offences against that Act. As I explained to the House on Second Reading, and to the Committee later, the entire structure of this Bill is different with regard to penalty, both from the English Bill and from the recommendations of the Maconochie Committee. There, again, the Committee suggested an omnibus penalty Clause, but we felt it was justifiable to differentiate between the various offences contained in the Bill and to have a graduated scale of punishment in rela-

  263
  tion to the offences, mounting as they became more serious. We have given effect to that in the structure of the Bill.
  Having regard to that fact, we see no justification for altering the Clause, as is proposed in the Amendment. We are dealing only with a first offence and the maximum fine for that is £20. What are the offences which are attracted by this Clause? They are the offence of fishing for salmon or trout or freshwater fish otherwise than by the prescribed methods under Clause 2, the taking of dead salmon or trout, the obstructing of a water bailiff or some similar person in the exercise of his powers, and the failure to mark packages of salmon and trout.
  These are the offences for which we are providing by this Clause. We think that a maximum fine of £20 for a first offence, if it is not serious, is reasonable. Otherwise, if we take the argument of the hon. Gentleman to its ultimate conclusion, we would always have an extraordinarily high limit in all penalty Clauses. We do not propose to do that. If it were a really serious offence against any of the Clauses to which I have referred, the case could be taken on indictment and thereby attract the heavier penalties envisaged further in the Clause. For these reasons we cannot accept the Amendment as being justifiable.
  Amendment negatived.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 7, line 19, after "on," to insert "conviction on."
  This is a drafting Amendment because the penalty imposed follows on conviction on indictment and not simply on indictment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dunglass: I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, at the end, to insert:
  (4) The whole or such proportion as the Secretary of State may by order specify, of any fines or moneys recovered under this Act on the complaint of a district beard. or of any officer of or person authorised by a district board, shall (unless the court for some special reason otherwise order) be paid to the district board, to be applied by them for the purposes of their functions under this Act or any other Act.
  The Secretary of State is aware that under previous practice river boards have
  264
  collected the fines allocated as a result of prosecutions. Under the Bill the proposal is that these fines shall go to the Crown. The stream of thought of the Secretary of State has been so clear on this matter generally that I hope that no Treasury influence has crept in. I understand that under the general law damages awarded against any person do not go to the party aggrieved, but to the Crown—
  The Lord Advocate: Not damages. fines.
  Lord Dunglass: I beg pardon; yes, fines go to the Crown. I do not intend to press that we should keep the present procedure, but I suggest to the Secretary of State that as river boards have, in practice, been getting moneys from these fines, and that as, in face of rising prices, they find it extremely difficult to employ the number of bailiffs who should be employed to protect the river, the right hon. Gentleman should take it upon himself—or the appropriate authority should—to allocate such part of these fines to the river boards as might seem appropriate.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): I am grateful for the kindness of the noble Lord toward me throughout these debates, but I plead with him to realise that I cannot be expected to accept this highly unusual principle—I do not put it higher than that. I confess that I have personal prejudices against fines trickling back to some other institution than the Exchequer. I am, of course, aware of the difficulties of the district boards, but I put it to the noble Lord that they will have their task eased by the discharge of the Bill.
  We have tried to make it easier to define offences and, consistent with just practice, to secure convictions. We are asking for powers to nominate officers, and I think that the protection which the district boards and those interested in certain fisheries have a right to expect, will be afforded. I think it would be unreasonable to ask, in addition, that we should depart from the normal processes of our courts and from the normal observance of principles by subventing fines to the boards. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. I regret that, for the reasons I have given, I cannot accept it.
  Mr. Gerald Williams: There are some very important factors involved in this matter. First, the Bill might not be necessary if we had plenty of water bailiffs to look after the rivers, and if encouragement was given to water bailiffs now it would mean that the Bill would be carried out to far greater advantage than otherwise. Even if the proposal contained in the Amendment is against the conscience of the Secretary of State, surely it would be much better, if he thinks of it, to prevent things happening rather than to have to fine people after offences are committed.
  Under our proposal, when somebody is fined the money would be used for good purposes, and the appointment of more water bailiffs would prevent these things happening. This prevention would be far better than that fish should be killed instead of going up the river to breed. Such prevention would be a much better job on the part of the right hon. Gentleman than trying to cure the trouble when the damage has been done. Furthermore, our proposals would keep the water bailiffs up to the mark. It would give them a commission on their alertness, so to speak, and also an incentive. This is a thoroughly good suggestion, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at it once more.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: One of the things that worries me very much about the Amendment is that it would keep the bailiffs very much up to the mark and very much on the job. In fact, it might be putting a premium on all kinds of little abuses which it has not been too difficult to see in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite at various stages of the Bill. I do not want to see the principle of getting cheap law, which has been the purpose of so many of the Amendments from the other side of the Committee, extended any further. There is no doubt that that has been the motive behind quite a number of their Amendments, and it is only right that the Committee should not pander to that kind of wish on the part of hon. Members opposite or their representatives.
  The acceptance of the Amendment would put a premium upon too much zeal being practised in order to collect fees and fines on behalf of a private organisation, already far too highly privileged, against all the laws of nature
  266
  and the natural laws of people asserting certain of their rights. Having already dealt with these in the case of the private poacher on Second Reading, I shall not go over them again now. It would, however, be a dangerous thing to allow the district boards to go out prosecuting, and then to collect their dues and to employ people on the proceeds of a number of cases—a sort of payment by results basis. It would be a thorough abuse of their function and is to be discouraged at all costs.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I hope that the Secretary of State will not be adamant in his refusal to look favourably at the Amendment, which is thought to be very reasonable by all the district fishery boards in Scotland. After all, they have being doing this work for 80 years and no one has suggested that they have not done the job very satisfactorily.
  Mr. Manuel: Except poachers.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Exactly. We want to get as many local people as possible interested in keeping down the poachers.
  The cost of providing water bailiffs is rising. It already means that proprietors of fishing rights have to pay something like 5, 10 or 20 per cent., and in some cases even in excess of 20 per cent., of the annual values of the fishings as their subvention to the district fishery board. Those costs are going up, and the Maconochie Committee recommended that the proposed inducement should be given to the district fishery boards, that they should be allowed to collect the increased fines which would follow from the adoption of their recommendations as a contribution towards the increased costs of the water bailiffs and their other heavy expenses.
  When recommendations of that kind are made by an influential committee, and when the district fishery boards have been carrying out these functions to everybody's satisfaction—except, of course, that of the poacher, as the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel), said—for the last 80 years, there seems very scant reason for taking those powers from them.
  6.45 p.m.
  Brigadier Thorp: When the Secretary of State made his remarks about my hon. Friend's Amendment I felt a little doubtful about it, but since the speech of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) I have no doubt about the Amendment being right. It seems to be generally the case that speeches from the benches opposite convince one that his own side is perfectly right.
  The hon. Member said that the proposal would tend to make bailiffs too efficient. Surely, we want efficient bailiffs; we do not want to employ men who are not efficient. He also talked about compensation, but this, of course. is not a question of compensation to a bailiff, but of fines, which would go to the district boards, being used to employ more bailiffs to look after interests properly.
  From their speeches, it is obvious that hon. Members opposite do not wholeheartedly support the Bill.
  Mr. M. MacMillan rose—
  Brigadier Thorp: They are always hankering after what they call the "legitimate" poacher.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: On a point of order. I have been misrepresented. The hon. and gallant Member is not at liberty to misrepresent what I said.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): It is in order for the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) to reply to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member if he wishes to do so.
  Brigadier Thorp: Thank you, Mr. Bowles. Naturally, I was not inclined to give way, because the hon. Gentleman can always speak again if he catches your eye, which is not difficult when we are in Committee. Obviously, I touched the hon. Member on a sore spot and he does not like it. I feel strongly that this is a good Amendment, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider it again.
  Mr. Carmichael: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for resisting the Amendment. I am amazed that a hard-headed business man should at first not be interested in the Amendment but should be suddenly converted into recognising it as a very valuable addition to the Bill. The atti-
  268
  tude of the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp) reminds me of his attitude in connection with the Iron and Steel Bill, when he had the audacity to say that the shareholders were the nation. He is equally well-informed on the present Bill.
  Brigadier Thorp: I have never spoken on steel and am not a business man, so I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to me.
  Mr. Carmichael: I agree that the hon. and gallant Member did not make a speech on the Iron and Steel Bill; he made one of his silly interjections. Had he been as quiet at that time as he was during the rest of the entire proceedings on the Bill, he would have given the impression that he had some knowledge of the subject.
  Even the noble Lord, in moving the Amendment, admitted that he was not very enthusiastic about it. I have been accused of defending the poacher on one or two occasions and if that is an offence I plead guilty. Here, we are not dealing with the poacher but trying to frame a Bill in the conditions of the law as it stands, with certain people possessing land and water of which some of us would like to see them dispossessed. We have to deal with the facts as we find them. If we permitted this Amendment to be made it is quite possible that bailiffs would be working overtime. The idea that, because they are responsible for the arrest of people committing an offence, they should have the fines handed to them would lead to a very nice state of affairs. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite do not seem to be over-pleased with some of the things I am saying.
  I think it would be a serious departure in the law—I am speaking as a layman—if the people responsible for arrest had, by some means or other, to have the fines transferred to the boards or authorities for whom they were working. I hope that whatever else is said the Secretary of State. will continue to resist this Amendment. I am reminded by my hon. Friends that, as the Bill stands, a person can be convicted on the evidence of one person without corroborative evidence. What kind of a mess would we be in in that case if the Amendment were adopted? I hope my right hon. Friend will oppose this to the last.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I, too, want to oppose the Amendment, which is a thoroughly vicious proposal. It is utterly wrong to give the private citizen a financial interest in securing convictions in public prosecutions. It is quite contrary to the whole spirit of our law. Last Friday a Bill was introduced from the other side of the House to abolish that infamous person, the common informer. This is an attempt, by a side wind to introduce a common informer in this sphere. It is utterly wrong and all the arguments adduced last Friday against the common informer are equally applicable to this Amendment.
  Mr. Pryde: I hope and trust that the Secretary of State will not have anything to do with this Amendment. I wish to quote from a letter I have received from a Peebles constituent:
  "The Tweed Commission and riparian owner crowd have never played the game with us. Private stretches everywhere; all the best water confiscated; trespassers will be prosecuted,' etc.; and with the approach of every new season another favourite cast lost, roped off by some so-and-so."
  The Amendment is saturated with class bias and I hope that the Government will give it short shrift.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: I want to correct a point which the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp), obviously did not want me to correct. We do not desire inefficient bailiffs; we desire efficient bailiffs. But we like the people who enjoy the privileges to pay for them and I cannot see what objection the hon. and gallant Member can have to the board paying for their own bailiffs. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to acknowledge that that is what I said.
  Mr. McNeil: Nothing that has been said in this genial discussion causes me to alter my view. The hon. Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), caused great confusion. The purpose of the fine is never related to the operation of apprehending the offender. It is an attempt to deter the offender and it would be an odd argument that these fines should be related to the people who had the job of apprehending. There are a great many avenues along which the principle he advocates might be extended. Are we to give a bonus to the guard in
  270
  the bank in terms of the fine imposed on a thief? Are we to be put in the extraordinary position that the district board and a water bailiff would rather see a man fined, although he has hundreds of convictions, than sent to prison?
  I am very much aware of the functions which the district boards discharge. They have a right to recover the cost of their operations, but that should not take place by recovery of a fine. It should take place by the raising of rates or the raising of prices for the sale of fish. I think the noble Lord was diffident and very conscious of its qualifications in offering the Amendment. I hope he will stick to those qualifications and persuade his hon. Friends to support him because this is a principle which I personally find a bit repugnant and it is quite plain from the speeches of my hon. Friends that they uniformly feel in the same way.
  Lord Dunglass: My diffidence almost disappeared in face of some of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, but not quite. I think that possibly the Secretary of State is right and that we could not ask him to make this exception to the ordinary practice of the law. He will, I know, bear in mind that the river boards are finding it extremely difficult to employ bailiffs and to do the job as they should. Provided we have impressed that on his mind, we shall look forward to some future occasion when he can help us in that respect. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 17.—(FORFEITURES).
  Amendments made: In page 7, line 32, at end, insert "Part I of."
  In line 36, leave out "in respect of which or."—[The Lord Advocate.]
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in line 40, after "against," to insert "Part I of."
  This is in the nature of a drafting Amendment because the forfeiture in Clause 17 (2) should refer to offences against Part I of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 18.—(DISPOSAL OF FISH SEIZED UNDER THE ACT.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. N. Macpherson: While one may agree in general with what the Secretary of State said about fines, whether that should apply to forfeitures seems a different proposition. Fish are taken out of a river and may be sold and the proceeds become part of the forfeiture, and that goes entirely to the State. That seems to be stretching things too far. In so far as the river is an asset to the owner he has been deprived to that extent of that asset, and it is not only the poacher who is forfeiting but it is the landlord who is being mulcted because someone has poached his water. In common reason that seems a very odd proposition, and I hope that the Secretary of State will have something to say about it.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: I would ask the Secretary of State to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). It seems that if we are to recognise the law of private property at all, this is a case where a salmon virtually stolen from the landlord might well be returned to the person to whom it belongs.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. McKie: I hope the Lord Advocate will be in a position to say something on this point. What has been said by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) emboldens me to say that the whole Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend for raising the point and we ought to congratulate him on his perspicacity. I hope the Lord Advocate will reply, because it seems that what is given with one hand is being taken away with the other. So far as I remember—I have not the advantage of the wording of the Clause before me—in certain circumstances there may be no possibility whatever of arresting the person who seizes the forfeited fish and sells it to the fishmonger. I ask the Lord Advocate why it has been necessary to include this at all, because the whole Clause is rendered somewhat unnecessary by the consequent proviso.
  The Lord Advocate: I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) should question the validity of this Clause, because
  272
  whenever he finds it convenient he prays in aid the recommendations of the Maconochie Committee. This Clause is phrased in the exact terms of the recommendations of the Maconochie Committee, and I would invite the hon. Gentleman to read the report. It is very interesting.
  The purpose of this is that when the fish is seized, it is desirable that it should not be retained, necessarily, until it is finally disposed of by order of the court. There are hygienic and sanitary reasons for that. Accordingly, power is given by this Clause for a person in whose possession the fish is, to sell it, if it is so desired. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that there is no property in the fish in the river. A person who takes a fish out of the river may be guilty of a statutory offence, but he is not guilty of stealing. Therefore it is not a question of taking something away from the owner of a particular part of the stream, because he has no legal title to it. While it is in the river it is a wild fish, but when it gets to the fishmonger's and is stolen, then it is no longer a wild fish and it is stealing.
  Mr. Macpherson: What the Lord Advocate said is quite true, but he knows that he is not telling the House, as I think he should, that the right to take the fish out of the river is a property and that there is property possession in that.
  The Lord Advocate: I did so. I said it was a statutory offence to take the fish out of the river. The hon. Member really should follow my argument. But I said there is no property possession while the fish is in the river; and accordingly we are following the recommendations of the Maconochie Committee in saying that when the fish, which is the subject of forfeiture, is in the possession of any person entitled under the Bill to seize the fish, it may be sold for the reasons I have explained.
  The reason for the proviso which exercised the mind of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), is again merely following out the recommendations of the Maconochie Committee, thus: A person who is empowered under the major part of the Clause to sell the fish may, for some reason, not sell it; and it is to give him an assurance against any action being taken because he had not done so that the proviso has been included. This matter

  273
  was fully considered by the committee and I do not think it fair to say that we have not accepted the recommendations of the Maconochie Committee. We have accepted them by and large. What we have done is to put a new structure on to the Bill, which I consider improves the Bill. With that explanation, I hope the Committee will accept the Clause.
  Mr. Boothby: Knowing a good deal about fish, I have come to one general conclusion, and that is that the sooner a fish—any fish—is sold the better for everybody concerned. Therefore I support the Government on this occasion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 19.—(APPLICATION TO RIVER ESK.)
  Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, at the end, to add:
  For the purposes of this Act the River Esk means the river from its source to the point where it joins the River Sark.
  In dealing with any matter which concerns the shifting sands of the Solway one always has to walk warily. The Clause we are considering deals with the River Esk. It may not be generally known what happens to the Esk when it runs into the Solway and it is just as well that we should know what we are talking about when we say
  "… the river Esk, including its banks and tributary streams, as is situated in Scotland."
  There are many Acts which try to determine what is the Solway. I do not think there is any Act which determines what is the Esk.
  The fact is that when the waters of the Solway end it leaves the bed of the river which shifts from time to time. I am informed that is also the boundary between Scotland and England, and from time to time it shifts. So that if by the "River Esk" is meant that bed, in some cases it will change from time to time, because it moves; and the purpose of this Amendment is to make absolutely clear exactly what the law is and how much is confined to Scotland and how much to England. For that purpose this Amendment makes it quite clear that that part of the Esk above where it joins the Sark is to be covered by this Bill, and that alone. I hope I have made the point clear. As I say, there are
  274
  shifting sands of the Solway, and at any rate the Amendment will enable the right hon. Gentleman to tell us exactly how the various Acts which seek to define the Solway affect this Bill.
  Mr. McKie: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised what at all events legally would appear to be a case of de minimis non curat lex. But so far as it represents the Scotland side of the Solway Firth, I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise it is a matter of some moment.
  I wish to inquire why the Esk should be treated differently from the River Tweed, although I feel sure I shall call down upon me the vials of anger from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp) when I say that. The River Tweed is to be made subject to this Bill, when it becomes an Act, in its entirety both in Scotland and in England; and here we merely reverse the position with regard to the River Esk. I have lived beside the Solway all my life and what my hon. Friend has said about the shifting sands of that famous estuary is absolutely true; especially about the position as regards the ending of the River Esk when it flows into the Solway Firth.
  Let us be clear about what is the geographical position with regard to that. It is only the Border between Scotland and England for about three or four miles where it joins with the other Border river the Liddel which, in turn, has been the Border between Scotland and England for the preceding 12 miles. The two rivers, after the confluence, are the Border between Scotland and England for three miles down to what is called Scot's Dike which, at right angles to the River Esk, runs northward to the River Sark. From Scot's Dike the River Esk, down to where it falls into the bed of the Solway, is wholly in England, though it is true that its right bank marches with what is called the Debatable Land, the parish of Kirkandrews-on-Esk, the place which was in dispute between the two Kingdoms for a long period and was finally incorporated in the Southern Kingdom at the time of the Act of Union of the Crowns.
  I wanted to make that abundantly clear, because it is not generally known and, as the River Esk has been men-

  275
  tioned, I think it is right that we should clearly understand the geographical situation. I hope that the Minister will now reply on this subject. I hope that he will tell us why the River Esk, although it is only the Border for such a short distance, should be made the subject of special treatment compared with its sister river.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) has treated us to a most interesting historical lecture which we enjoyed very much indeed, but he seems to have misinterpreted the purpose of the Amendment.
  Mr. McKie: No.
  Mr. Fraser: Or indeed, the Clause.
  Mr. McKie: We are dealing with the Clause.
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman is getting us more confused than ever. He was supporting the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) who moved an Amendment, but now he says he was speaking about the Clause. The position is that the Esk has not been treated differently from the Tweed. It is being treated in exactly the same way. The Tweed happens to be included in Scotland for the purposes of this Bill, but the whole of the Esk was included in the provisions of the English Act of 1923. We propose in this Clause that it should so remain, and that we should not have some parts of the River Esk under this Bill and some parts under the English Act. Indeed, if we put in a definition of the Esk in this Bill and provided that some part of it should be covered by the Bill, it would be necessary to amend the Act of 1923.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries said earlier that there was no need to have different laws for the two sides of the Border unless there was very good reason. If there was very good reason for bringing part of the River Esk within the provisions of this Bill, then perhaps the Government would look sympathetically at the matter. But I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has given any good reason.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: Under Section 83 of the Act of 1923, there were special provisions as to the Solway. In the Fourth Schedule the Solway district was defined, but that Solway district was contingent upon a Solway district board being set up. It has never been set up. Therefore, it would appear that the definition of the Solway in that Act has not yet come into being. The point of my Amendment is that it seems likely that the Esk, where it flows at low water through the Solway, is still the Esk, half of which is English and half of which is Scottish. That is the point to which I should like the hon. Gentleman to address his mind.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. T. Fraser: The River Esk must be treated as one, whether the tide is in or out. I have not got the Act of 1923 beside me now, but I think it makes clear that it governs the Esk. It may be that the Solway district has not been defined, because a board has not been set up, but the River Esk is covered by the English Act and any offences against that Act, as provided for in Section 83, on any part of the River Esk, whether it be geographically in Scotland or not, would be liable to prosecution in the courts.
  That is where we should leave the matter unless there is very good reason, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman himself thinks that he has given a good reason for having this one part of the Esk brought within the provisions of this Bill, while the greater part of the river remains within the provisions of the Act of 1923. The Esk should be treated like the Tweed—as one river. Offences in any part of the river should be treated similarly whether committed on one side of the Border or the other.
  Brigadier Thorp: This is a Scottish Bill which deals with England and, as far as I could gather, we have had an Irish answer from the Joint Under-Secretary of State, so we are getting rather a hybrid Bill. He said that he was treating the Esk like the River Tweed, but he is doing exactly the opposite. He is including one river in Scotland and leaving the other out. That is not treating one river like another, and that is why I said that we have had an Irish answer.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: The whole point of this Amendment is to make certain that there is a firm definition of where

  277
  the Esk ends. If the Government will promise to go into the matter and make certain on that point, I shall be content.
  Mr. T. Fraser: I have now got the 1923 Act. Section 83 says:
  "This Act shall apply to so much of the River Esk, with its banks and tributary streams up to their source, as is situated in Scotland."
  This Clause says:
  "The provisions of this Act shall not apply to so much of the River Esk, including its banks and tributary streams, as is situated in Scotland."
  The two Measures make it clear that any part of the river which happens to be described as the River Esk shall be treated under the 1923 Act and not under this Bill.
  Mr. Macpherson: All I am asking the hon. Gentleman to do is to make it clear what is the Solway and what is the Esk. If he will promise to make that point clear on Report Stage, I shall be satisfied.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 20.—(PROVISIONS AS TO RIVER TWEED.)
  Mr. Pryde: I beg to move, in page 8, line 17, after "River Tweed," to insert:
  "except within the County of Peeblesshire."
  Many people in Peebles wish to have the River Tweed taken out of the Bill altogether. Some have jumped to the conclusion that it would then come under English law, but it will be found that provision has been made in a later Amendment for taking care of the River Tweed. At present, from the point of view of the angler, fishing on the Tweed is absolutely intolerable. I have here a membership card of the County of Peebles Angling Improvement Association. I should like to quote from it to give hon. Members some idea of what conditions are like for anglers on the Tweed.
  This ticket, or permit, allows a member
  "… to fish for trout from Lyne railway bridge, down stream to the boundary with Selkirkshire on the north bank and to the march between Elibank and Ashiestiel on the south bank, with the following exceptions:

  (1) The Peebles town water (both banks);

  (2) The south bank within the Kings-meadows Policies, and the north bank opposite Kingsmeadows House, within the wood at the mouth of Soon Hope Burn;

  278

  (3) Both banks from Kailzie Throat to Kailzie Pool;

  (4) Both banks from the Cross Dyke on south bank near the head of the Nut Wood Pool to the head of the Girley Pool;

  (5) Both banks from the west boundary of the policies of Traguair House to Innerleithen Bridge;

  (6) Both banks within the fences at Walkerburn Cauld;

  (7) The north bank between the Gate Hope Burn and Holylee Lodge;

  (8) The south bank from Elibank railway bridge to the estate march with Ashiestiel

  (9) The north bank opposite Thornielee House for a distance of half a mile.

  All these positions are marked by notice boards:
  The holder of this ticket will have the privilege of fishing with single rod and line, on weekdays only, during the period mentioned hereon."
  Lord Dunglass: On a point of order. With respect, I do not see that the conditions which the hon. Member has read out about association waters have anything to do with this Bill. They would be preserved whether the Bill was brought in or not.
  The Temporary Chairman: I must admit that I was in some difficulty myself in understanding the quotation, and in deciding whether it is in order or not. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will continue.
  Mr. Pryde: I have not come to the point of the hook yet. These rules continue:
  "He must not kill any trout under eight inches or any smolts or parr;
  No bait fishing during April and September;
  Club and competitive fishing prohibited;
  Any member found fishing on the Sabbath will be severely penalised;
  He must show this ticket to the bailiff, must fish with legal lures only and tell of others fishing illegally;
  He must not sell his fish, and must not be accompanied by a dog;"
  The Temporary Chairman: Before the hon. Gentleman proceeds, I think he will realise that his Amendment is to exempt the River Tweed within the county of Peeblesshire. Will he therefore explain, very soon, the relevance of what he is saying to the Amendment?
  Mr. Pryde: Yes, Mr. Bowles. In the county of Peebles there are people who

  279
  feel that it is intolerable that they should have certain conditions imposed over the River Tweed—
  The Temporary Chairman: Do I understand that the hon. Member desires that the harsh conditions on certain fishing for certain people should be removed? Is that right?
  Mr. Pryde: That is right. The last rule is:
  "The season commences on 1st April and terminates on 30th September. No night fishing, except during June and July and none from 1 a.m. to 4 a.m."
  I think this is an extreme case, so far as my knowledge of the conditions regarding angling in Scotland is concerned; they are found nowhere else. I therefore ask the Committee to take the River Tweed outwith the confines of the Bill.
  Mr. T. Fraser: My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) ended his remarks by appealing to my right hon. Friend to take the River Tweed out of the Bill altogether, but his Amendment only proposes to take that part of the river which is in Peeblesshire out of the Bill. He will appreciate that there is no good reason for doing that. There are peculiarities about the River Tweed into which the Maconochie Committee made inquiry, and he will be aware that, in paragraph 54 of their Report, they made certain recommendations about the Tweed to which we are giving effect in part of the Clause which my hon. Friend proposes to amend.
  There are no special circumstances in the county of Peebles which justify that part of the Tweed which is within the county of Peebles being taken out of the provisions of the Bill, and, indeed, the mere fact that the Maconochie Committee made this special inquiry into the position of the Tweed and made it the subject of special recommendations leads us to believe that there was a very good reason why we should not do that. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
  Mr. Ross: Will my hon. Friend tell us what would be the effect of accepting the Amendment?
  Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend wishes to amend Clause 20 (1) because the effect of a recommendation of the Maconochie Committee would be to apply to the
  280
  Tweed the provisions of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868, for the protection of smolts and fry during the whole year, instead of in April and May only, as at present. We are extending the protection to young fish for the whole of the year, instead of two months, as under the Act which is now being amended.
  Mr. Pryde: The membership card of the Angling Association I have quoted also does that.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Lord Dunglass: I should like to say to the Secretary of State that we who govern the Tweed and look after its interests very much welcome Clause 20, because it will give us a much better chance of protecting the young stock and also the sporting fish which come up into the county of Peebles and which are particularly vulnerable in that area. These powers are very much welcomed by the Tweed Commissioners.
  Mr. Pryde: A great Parliamentarian once said, "The bomber will always get through," and to the noble Lord I quote similar words, though slightly varied—"The poacher will always get through."
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: As the Committee has been reminded, this Clause applies to the River Tweed the provisions of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868, and perhaps hon. Members will recollect that one of the provisions of Schedule G of that Act relates to the construction of dams and lades which I do not think will be of very great advantage to the River Tweed. The point lies in the last four words of the bylaws contained in Clause 7, which says that no dam shall be altered so as to create a greater obstruction to the free passage of fish "than at present exists." That is a reference to the year 1865.
  It has been found, in practice, that the possibility of effective action against those who may seek the right to raise the height of dams has virtually been ruled out by the presence in this otherwise admirable Schedule of these four words which relate to 1865, because it is quite impossible for anyone to prove in what condition those dams were in that year.

  281
  7.30 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate will recollect very well that certain litigation was undertaken by the District Fishery Board of the River South Esk which flows through part of my constituency. The Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State will know that in that case the Board incurred an expenditure of no less than £2,500 in an effort to get an obstruction removed. But they were unsuccessful upon appeal, because they were hampered by these four words. They found themselves quite unable to prove in what condition the dam had been in the year 1865. In giving his opinion in that case, the Lord President of the Court of Session said:
  "It is convenient to take first the case on Bylaw 7 which the Sheriff Substitute "—
  in the inferior court—
  "held to have been infringed. The bylaw enacts that no dam shall he so altered as to create a greater obstruction to the free passage of the fish than at present exists."
  The Lord President continued:
  "The instruction thus promulgated in 1865 is to compare the obstruction created by the dam as altered with the obstruction created by the dam as it was in 1865."
  He went on:
  "This is the only construction which gives the words their primary natural meaning and which accords with the general scheme and policy of the whole body of legislation, namely, to make the position in the years 1862, 1865 or 1868 the norm or standard."
  He went on to say:
  "The counter view urged upon us was that each and every alteration must be viewed in isolation, and a comparison made between the dam as so altered and the dam as it was immediately before this alteration was made."
  In dealing with that view put forward in the case, the Lord President of the Court of Session concluded:
  "The short answer to these counter views is that this is not what the bye-law says, and that, to achieve such results, it would require to be very differently expressed. If it be the case, as I readily believe, that a comparison with 1865 is yearly becoming more difficult, that is a reason for enacting a fresh bylaw or new legislation, but not for the court rewriting the bylaw at their own hand."
  That has been found to be a very great barrier to getting any improvement made to the river. Although I have not put down an Amendment to cover the point, I would suggest to the Secretary of State that between now and the Report stage he should consider the possibility of put-
  282
  ting down a very short new Clause, the effect of which would be to amend Bylaw 7 of Schedule G of the Act of 1865 by the deletion of the words "than at present exists."
  Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has put us in a little difficulty because in this Clause we have a subsection providing for the application of Schedule G to waters to which it has not up to now applied. The whole burden of the hon. Gentleman's remarks has been to examine whether or not Schedule G should be continued. It may very well be that we ought to look sympathetically at the case he has just made, but it seems to me that if it were found possible to do anything at all to effect what he wishes, it would be by amending the 1865 Act under which the bylaw to which he takes exception was made. I most willingly undertake to have his case examined and to consider whether or not Schedule G ought to be continued in its present form.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 22.—(INTERPRETATION.)
  Mr. Macdonald: I beg to move, in page 9, line 34. at the end, to insert:
  "Instrument" shall not include rod and line or gaff or landing net.
  Because we feel that the words "an instrument" in the drafting of the Bill are much too vague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) and I commend this Amendment to the Committee. As the Lord Advocate well knows, although a gaff or landing net is used by many fair and legal fishers, a case can be made out for the wrong use of both those articles. The Lord Advocate has already told us that it is almost impossible to define the word "instrument," because a crafty person would immediately provide himself with an illegal gadget not mentioned in the Bill. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted because it will prevent the annoyance and victimisa-

  283
  tion of the fair angler by the over-zealous or bullying bailiff.
  As the Lord Advocate stated, one object to the Bill is to provide a standardisation of the angling law throughout Scotland. Surely this is a golden opportunity to standardise the use of the gaff in the fishing season throughout Scotland, and to insert the provision that it shall only be regarded as a legal instrument when the person with the gaff is also in possession of a rod and line.
  Mr. McNeil: I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman is not, perhaps, under a misapprehension with regard to this Amendment, but, at any rate, I am not out of sympathy with the general proposal which he has just made. As he knows, forfeiture would not take place where there is legal fishing. He referred to one exception which we have made in relation to the gaff during a short part of the season on the Tweed, which is excepted for a very good reason. It is due to the condition of the fish and to the damage which would result if we did not make that exception.
  Normally, as we have already indicated to the Committee, the landing net and the gaff, and, as we offered earlier, the tailer, will be excepted. But when we come to illegal methods outside Clause 1, then, quite plainly, one could use a landing net of a gigantic size and certainly not in association with a normal rod and line. One could go into a pool with a specially constructed net and do a great deal of harm. One could construct an instrument which would look like a gaff and which would, indeed, be a kind of gaff, but which would not be used for the normal purpose of assisting ashore fish caught by a rod and line.
  I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will agree that we had better stand where we are, that forfeiture should take place in that kind of condition but being sure that the normal use of the landing net, the gaff and the tailer is permitted at all times, except during this limited part of the Tweed season, and that forfeiture arising under Clause 1, at any rate, does not apply.
  Mr. Manuel: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend if he would look at
  284
  this Clause again. I feel that the case made out by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Macdonald) has some value in it, because I think all of us agree that the main purpose of bringing this Bill into being was to prevent what was being done by organised gangs. However. I can imagine something happening in the case of a person, something which might be regarded as a little illegal but which one might well overlook, having regard to the fact that the forebears of these Highlanders have always been on the land—and it is only now that things which their forebears did in gathering food are being made illegal. I feel that it would be harsh and an injustice to inflict these penalties on a fisherman who might be infringing the law in a slight degree.
  Mr. McNeil: In what way?
  Mr. Manuel: By using a certain hook that my right hon. Friend knows nothing about. There are many methods. I do not want to give the poacher away, but I feel it would be a harsh penalty to take from that fisherman his rod, reel and line. I appreciate what the Secretary of State has said about a landing net of the type he indicated. While I am sure that all of us who have angling interests at heart deprecate illegal methods very much, there are qualifications to that general statement in the case of some very good persons who do not do a great deal of wrong, and I would be very loth to take away the rod which the angler cherishes so much.
  Amendment negatived.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 10, line 1, at the end, to insert:
  "with such bait or lure as is lawful at the passing of this Act."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the definition of rod and line fishing to remove any doubt whether the use of a drag hook would be legal. We want it made quite clear that the use of a drag hook will continue to be illegal, as it is at present. We also want to make it clear that any bait or lure lawful at the passing of this Act will continue to be lawful bait and lure, but anything which at the date of the passing of the Act has been held to be illegal will be an illegal method of fishing by rod and line.
  7.45 p.m.
  Colonel Clarke: There is one possibility which I do not think the Lord Advocate has covered. What about some new lure that may be invented? Every now and again something new comes along and it is generally brought in from America. I suggest, for example, the bait that is called basserino, a wobbling and diving lure used when spinning for pike and salmon. It is a perfectly fair and sporting method of fishing. Do we understand from what the Lord Advocate has said that from now on the baits and lures that exist, if permissible, will continue to be allowed, but that nothing new may be brought in?
  Mr. Pryde: What is the basis of the terms "legal" or "illegal" lure?
  Mr. McNeil: I was indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) for this Amendment. The Committee will remember that when I was discussing this matter on Second Reading, my hon. Friend made the point that the definition in the Bill was a pretty incomplete definition. I have therefore gone out of my way to help him. But if he is going to complain that my previous term was too loose, and now that I make an attempt to meet him he wants to ask more precisely how I know what is a lawful lure, I am tempted to take this back altogether.
  I hope the Committee agrees that this is a step forward. As to the lure which may become illegal and which may be invented, we shall look at that when it comes along. Anglers' associations and anglers in general have a pretty good idea of what is legal or illegal. I do not think I could define in vacuo what may become an illegal lure. That would be a massive work of imagination to which I am not at all anxious to commit myself.
  Colonel Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman said he would look at it as we go along. Does he mean as the Bill goes along or as the baits are introduced? I agree that this cannot be settled here and now, but there is latitude within the scope of the Amendment.
  Mr. McNeil: I meant as the lure comes along. If inventions come along on the lines of present lures they will be considered.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 7, leave out from "conveyance," to the end of line 9, and insert:
  "capable of carrying passengers, livestock or goods by road."
  The definition of a vehicle in this Clause seems to be open to two disadvantages. The first is that it excludes public service vehicles. It also places in the way of those driving public service vehicles an undue temptation, because quite naturally anybody who wants to move fish that has been poached will think out other means of doing so if he knows that he cannot move it by private conveyance. I think, therefore, it is putting an undue temptation in the way of drivers of public service vehicles.
  Secondly, there is the question of the definition of
  "… the meaning of the Road Traffic Act. 1930."
  I have heard of poachers going out with perambulators. That would not seem to be covered by this definition. Obviously, common sense is used in this matter, but the definition does appear to be too narrow. Whilst I do not attach particular importance to the words I have proposed, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the definition.
  Mr. Stuart: I wondered whether, Mr. Bowles, you intended to call the following Amendment, which has a very similar objective—in line 7, to leave out from "conveyance," to the end of line 9.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The Chairman thought that it would be to the advantage of the Committee if both were discussed together.
  Mr. Stuart: What is worrying some of us, myself included, is whether the definition of a public service vehicle covers all transport, such as that belonging to British Railways or that concerned under the Road Traffic Act because, with the increasing multitude of vehicles belonging to nationalised industries, there may be a great number of vehicles excluded from the definition. It is always within the realm of possibility that the driver of a vehicle which belongs to a nationalised industry might, on his way home, or when he is not busy, or at some other period. be inveigled into assisting poachers in transporting poached fish. The whole object of the Amendment is to deal with

  287
  that. It is very similar to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). We should like this point elucidated.
  The Lord Advocate: I have here a certain amount of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend. In framing this definition we thought that, by and large, we had covered the types of vehicle which would normally be employed in these enterprises but, on reflection, it would seem that there might be certain types of vehicle which conceivably could be used and which would not be embraced by the definition. It is difficult to frame a definition which will embrace all the vehicles to which hon. Members refer and, at the same time, exclude those which obviously should be excluded. We are looking into this question, however, and between now and the Report Stage we shall try to devise a definition which will, perhaps, be more acceptable and will serve the purpose to a greater extent than the existing definition.
  Captain Duncan: In his search for a form of words will the Lord Advocate remember that it is important that the right of search should cover all vehicles, including the nationalised vehicles? We are not so much concerned here with the right of forfeiture under Clause 17 because, clearly, a nationalised vehicle would not be forfeited. It could only be given back to the State, and it belongs to the State already. It is the question of the power of search which is important, and I suggest that the form of words should cover every vehicle in connection with the power of search but, in connection with forfeiture, should exclude nationalised vehicles.
  Mr. Macpherson: In view of the Lord Advocate's assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Stuart: I beg to move, in line 14. at the end, to insert:
  (3) Nothing contained in this Act shall limit or take away the power of any person or body to take legal proceedings for the enforcement of this Act or of any other Act relating to salmon and freshwater fisheries.
  I feel very strongly about this Amendment and I hope the Government will be
  288
  prepared to consider it. I do not want again to go over the ground which was covered on Second Reading, and I have re-read what the Lord Advocate said on that occasion in dealing with this point, but, nevertheless, the object of the Bill, and I suppose the object of all of us, is to see that something is done to preserve the stocks of salmon and sea trout in our rivers. What worries my hon. Friends and myself is whether the same effective action will be taken by way of prosecution under this Bill as has been taken in the past.
  I am not in the least desirous of belittling the Bill or its intentions, but I do not want to see the power to prosecute whittled down. Under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act of 1923, outside bodies, river boards and so on, have had powers of prosecution, while in Scotland anybody has had the power to prosecute. As I mentioned before—and I apologise for repeating myself—the Fishmongers' Company, to which reference has been made, has, in the interests of stocks of fish in our rivers, been doing its best over the past 50 years to see that the law was observed and that poaching was restricted. The Secretary of State has agreed, and I am sure the Lord Advocate would agree, that they have been carrying out this function efficiently and with a certain degree of success—not with a view to making money out of it by way of fines, because it has not been a moneymaking business. They know a good deal about the work and have been successful in some 200 prosecutions, with only about five failures out of the last 200 cases.
  In support of what I have said, I should like to read a short letter which was sent by the superintendent of the River Tweed Commissioners to the clerk of the company, dated 18th December, 1950. It was dealing with a very important case of salmon poaching in which there was an appeal to the Court of Session. The Lord Advocate referred to certain remarks made by the Lord President of the Court of Session in dealing with this matter. I do not wish anybody to think that anything I say is a reflection on the Bench. I am sure that would be out of order. But the Lord Advocate brought forward the views of the Lord President in his support, and I simply want to point out that the people who carried through this successful prosecution had, in turn, support

  289
  from the River Tweed Commissioners. The superintendent wrote:
  "I have been following this case with considerable interest as it appeared probable that a large proportion of the salmon came from the Tweed district. At our quarterly meeting with great satisfaction I was able to report to the commissioners that the appeal had failed and I was instructed to write to you and convey the appreciation of the commissioners to all concerned, especially to Mr. Gibson for his able handling of the case. This case has probably done more good in Southern Scotland that any other for a very long time as, from all I hear, the market for poached fish for small hotels has received a severe setback."
  That supports the view which I am trying to advance. I hope, of course, that the Crown will prosecute with energy in all proper cases, but it seems to me a pity that the power to prosecute should be removed from others who have been dong good work in the past. I am not dealing only with the Fishmongers' Company for I also refer, of course, to all the river boards and to such organisations as the Loch Lomond Angling Association. This is a very important matter and I feel very strongly about it and about the Amendment. I hope the Government will consider the Amendment favourably and will be prepared to accept it. It is I believe, in a perfectly clear and proper form.
  8.0 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate: I shall deal in the first place with last remark of the right hon. Gentleman, when he said that he thought the Amendment was in proper from. I am afraid that it does not carry out the purpose he wishes. I shall indicate my views rather strongly about the merits of the cases later, but I would point out to him that, as I read the Amendment, it does not achieve the purpose he seeks, because it says:
  "Nothing contained in this Act shall limit or take away the power of any person or body to take legal proceedings for the enforcement of this Act"—
  I would point out that under the Bill the only person who has the right to take proceedings is the Public Prosecutor. The Amendment goes on:
  "or of any other Act relating to salmon and freshwater fisheries."
  We are not interfering with the powers left in any of those earlier Acts, the power of the private prosecutor. I am afraid that the Amendment does not therefore achieve the purpose that is sought.
  290
  I wish with much strength and emphasis to resist the Amendment on its merits. In so doing, I am not in any way derogating from the conduct of these private prosecutors—the Fishmongers' Company and so on. The reason why we are stopping the right of private prosecution is not because they have carried out their duties imperfectly, but because there is a big principle at stake. By and large, we recognise in Scotland that private prosecutions play no part in our criminal jurisdiction, and that the right to determine whether a citizen should be hauled before a criminal court is the responsibility of the Public Prosecutor. I appreciate that this differs from the English system and, probably. from the Northern Ireland system.
  Mr. Gage: It is the same in Northern Ireland.
  The Lord Advocate: In any event, we are not dealing with these other countries. but with Scotland with its own procedure, traditions and customs. The whole tendency has been to remove the existing rights of private prosecutors and to confide them in the Public Prosecutor, which is a principle I support most strongly. I feel that it is wrong in principle, with our traditions and background, to say that private individuals should have a right to bring a fellow citizen before a criminal court, when that private individual has a vested right in the issue. The person who should determine whether or not a prosecution should take place is the Public Prosecutor, who is an independent person with no vested right in the matter and no interest one way or the other but that of the administration of justice.
  It is against that background that I oppose this Amendment. I am fortified in my opinion by the views recently expressed by the Lord President of the Court of Session, which I quoted during the Second Reading debate. For the benefit of the Committee, and particularly those Members who were not here during Second Reading and have not perhaps read the OFFICIAL REPORT, I should again like to quote Lord Cooper's dictum. He had this to say in dealing with an appeal against a conviction in a case where the proceedings had been inaugurated by the Fishmongers' Company as a private prosecution. Lord Cooper has had a long experience now on the Bench. He was Lord Justice Clerk and latterly has

  291
  been Lord Justice General. He has had long experience as Lord Advocate—one of my predecessors—in the Government of 1935. This is what he said:
  "There remains the matter around which the debate centred, namely, the admissibility of the vital evidence relating to the discovery of the salmon in the cold store The respondents, the Fishmongers' Company, are private prosecutors, who appear to have assumed, both in Scotland and England, the responsibility of enforcing the Act, and it is certainly a tittle odd that a matter which has latterly acquired so pronounced an element of public interest should not yet have been confined to the Public Prosecutor alone."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1285.]
  Mr. Stuart: He said that the matter had "latterly" created such interest, the position being that effective steps were previously not being taken. I agree that it is only comparatively recently that the Fishmongers' Company have been trying to do something about it.
  The Lord Advocate: It shows that under existing circumstances, and having regard to the record and history of this matter, he felt that the right of prosecution should alone be confided in the Public Prosecutor. Whether we are dealing with fish or any other subject, as far as the law of Scotland is concerned I cannot be too emphatic in asserting my opinion that the right to prosecute should be the public duty vested in the Public Prosecutor. I see no justification for continuing the right of private prosecutions where it exists, or introducing it as a new principle where it does not exist, because the whole tendency has been to concentrate the right of prosecution in the Public Prosecutor and to waive the right of the private prosecutor.
  A very interesting piece of history can be adduced in support of this tendency, because there are still some Acts in existence which give the right of private prosecution. Under the Sheriff Court and Legal Officers Act, 1927, power is given to the Lord Advocate in any case which can be taken in the sheriff court, either by a private prosecutor or by the Public Prosecutor, to order that the case will be taken only by the Public Prosecutor. Lord Cooper, when Lord Advocate in 1938, applied that rule in relation to the sheriff court in respect of certain statutes dealing with fishing and game. It indicates that even in the days prior to the war there was this tendency to
  292
  restrict wherever possible the right of private prosecutors. I am rather surprised at the party opposite, which was the party responsible for these Measures in those days, now seeking to maintain in this very limited sphere the right of private prosecution by—and let us be quite frank about it, although I have no intention of saying anything that would reflect on the company—an interested body.
  Lord Douglass: Surely, not only in the interests of the Fishmongers' Company or the river boards, but in the interests of the individual who is to be prosecuted, who would very often far rather be prosecuted by a private individual; otherwise he would have the extra stigma of being prosecuted by the Crown.
  The Lord Advocate: That is a very weak point. The criterion is whether a person has committed an offence and has been convicted. I have never heard it suggested in my comparatively long experience in the law that people charged with offences prefer private prosecutions as against public prosecutions because the stigma is slightly less in the case of a private prosecution. The noble Lord apparently prefers to be charged by a private prosecutor than by the Public Prosecutor so far as this particular type of offence is concerned, but he will be disappointed, because I can assure him of equal efficiency in prosecution.
  The right hon. Gentleman said something which I am sure was not intended to cast any reflection on the officers of my Department. He wondered whether, if the power were transferred solely to the Public Prosecutor, there would be the same effective action as has obtained in the past. The people who will be prosecuting as public prosecutors will either be the Procurators Fiscal or one of my deputies, who are the most experienced prosecutors in the country. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying, as I think he wants to rise to his feet to say, that the Fishmongers' Company have specialised knowledge of this type of case.
  Mr. Stuart: I did not mean to cast any reflection. I only meant to put the point whether, with their multifarious other duties, they would be able to do so. I know that they will carry out the prosecutions with which they deal with the utmost efficiency, but there is no harm in supplementing their efforts.
  The Lord Advocate: If that argument was accepted the principle could be extended throughout the whole gamut of criminal offences. Why not say, to take an example, that because they may be very busy they should not prosecute under the Road Traffic Acts, and that the people involved in accidents with motor cars should have the right of private prosecution under that Act.
  It is part of the office of the Procurator Fiscal and the Lord Advocate's depute to be able to present to the court in the proper manner, supported by the requisite evidence and fortified by the necessary legal arguments, the case to justify a conviction. When they are armed with that evidence it does not matter whether they are dealing with salmon, motor cars or anything else, it is their forensic skill and method of presenting the case which determines whether or not the case is properly presented.
  Accordingly, I cannot see that there is any reason for suggesting that these highly skilled prosecutors, who are doing that type of work day in and day out will be any less effective than a person who appears only spasmodically on behalf of one of the boards or one of the companies. Nor do I think that any criterion can be applied in respect of the number of successes or failures in prosecutions. That is not necessarily a touchstone of the administration of justice because it may well be that during a long period a number of convictions are obtained merely because the evidence adduced has been sufficient.
  Is there any evidence in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman to show that if the evidence had been provided not to the solicitor engaged by the Fishmongers' Company but to the Procurator Fiscal or the Crown Office there would not have been the same number of convictions? Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence that those convictions were obtained because the prosecution was undertaken by the solicitor of the Fishmongers' Company, and that they would not have been obtained if the prosecution had been in the hands of the Public Prosecutor?
  Mr. Stuart: The company also have the inspector, who is responsible for organising the seizure or apprehension.
  The Lord Advocate: And he certainly has the power to continue to do so under this Bill. I presume that is so if he is appointed one of the officers under the Bill, and if those people are carrying out those duties I am sure that if, with full consultation with my right hon. Friend on this matter, they bring the evidence before the Public Prosecutor, there will be equally effective prosecutions.
  There is a point which I would not suggest has any bearing on the matter because I do not wish to impute to the company any wrong motives, but the fact remains that if there is a private prosecutor he gets the fine. There is not a great deal in that because experience shows that most of the fines are eaten up in defraying the expenses in conducting the prosecutions, so that it is not a money making concern for the private prosecutor. Nevertheless, having regard to the general trend, and fortified by the opinion on this matter of such an eminent person as the Lord Justice General, and looking at the merits of the case, I have no hesitation in rejecting the Amendment, and in inviting the Committee to do likewise.
  8.15 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Boles: We evidently differ quite considerably as between England and the Scottish Office because in this matter we want to have somebody who will prosecute the poacher. Although under Scottish law it may be the Public Prosecutor who will do it, I feel that he has no urge to do it, and so far as I know he has—
  The Lord Advocate: I cannot let that comment pass. These people are officers of my Department. The hon. and gallant Member says that they have no urge to do it: they have the duty to do it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Boles: If the Lord Advocate will excuse my saying so, his officers and the Public Prosecutor are not on the spot. The man who is on the spot is the man who wishes to undertake the prosecution—the owner of the river.
  There are conditions in which the owner may wish to prosecute. There are also conditions in which the owner does not wish to prosecute. What happens in the case in which the owner does not wish to prosecute? The poacher gets off scot free. If he has been caught by people other than the owner, those people cannot report him to the Public

  295
  Prosecutor apparently. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I am told that the owner is the man who should do it. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Then is the position that a common informer from anywhere can walk into the office and report the offence?
  I know of a case in which poaching occurred on water owned by the Forestry Commission. They had all the necessary evidence, they considered the case for a long time and then said that they were not interested in what was in the water and that they would, therefore, refuse to prosecute. They having refused to prosecute, it was rather invidious for anyone else to call in the Public Prosecutor; he never got to hear of it, and that case went by default. That is the kind of case I want to avoid. I say that the man who has the urge to prosecute is the man who is interested in the result and that he should be the one to undertake the prosecution. That is how the matter is looked at in England.
  Mr. Boothby: I rather regret having to speak at this moment. The Lord Advocate has made some very sweeping statements of a general, rather vehement kind and has accused my own party of this or that view. I do not for one moment doubt or question the sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart), and my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) and the others who are supporting this Amendment. They are absolutely entitled to do so, and I frankly confess that I was impressed by the force of their argument. However, I must make clear my own point of view.
  For the last 20 years I have been, and still remain, strongly and even passionately opposed to private prosecution in any shape or form. I have frequently spoken against it and I am aware of the attitude in this House of the present Lord Justice General on the issue when he was Lord Advocate. He made it plain to us all before the war, and he has subsequently made it plain on the Bench. I hate private prosecutors and common informers. I should like to see them all done away with. The best form of administration of the criminal law is to confine it increasingly and finally and totally to the prosecuting department under the Lord Advocate.
  296
  I am sorry to have to differ from some of my hon. Friends, but this is a question on which I have felt strongly for many years, and I have rejoiced to see the whole system of prosecution in Scotland passing steadily over the past 15 years out of private hands into public hands. That is right as a question of principle, and I agree on that point with the Lord Advocate. In view of the sweeping statements which have been made on both sides of the Committee in this interesting debate, which has obviously been conducted with great sincerity on both sides, I could not, representing as I do a constituency with great fishing interests, both private and public, allow this occasion to pass without saying what I conscientiously feel on this point as a matter of principle.
  Mr. Gage: I am astonished at the Lord Advocate not accepting this Amendment. I regard it as very important and as involving an important principle. I would like to refer to one thing that my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) said. I can well understand his dislike of private prosecutors and public informers, but I should like to make it quite clear that there is nothing in common between a private prosecutor and a common informer.
  A common informer is one who for personal gain takes a civil action based on a breach of a statute. A private prosecutor is simply one who endeavours to enforce the criminal law as it is without getting any gain from it at all. No private prosecutor has ever made a penny out of a private prosecution. That may be a misapprehension, which ought to be cleared up.
  Mr. Boothby: It does not necessarily follow that a common informer has personal gain. He may do it just for the sake of it.
  Mr. Gage: He may fail in his action, but if he succeeds, he is bound to get something from it. What he does with it afterward, one does not know. However, there is that distinction which I think should be known by the Committee.
  The Lord Advocate is quite right when he says that we in Northern Ireland have the same system as in Scotland, and I know that in my own country there is very strong feeling in favour

  297
  of it. We have the Crown Prosecutor and Scotland has the Public Prosecutor, who perform the same function. In England, however, there has always been a system of private prosecution, and, much as I dislike saying it, I am bound to say that I think that, on the whole, the English system is better than the system in either my own country or Scotland.
  This is an important matter, and I do not for a moment make any reflection on the very able officers who carry out these functions in Scotland, and who prosecute with great ability and skill, and I am sure, in every circumstance, do their duty. But it is a dangerous principle to confide in any officials the right of saying whether or not there should be a prosecution, and in England, where I think they have a greater and deeper regard for these things, their attitude—and I am sure it is a proper one—is that it should be not only the right but the duty of any member of the community who sees a breach of the law to take' proceedings if it is necessary. I am sure that on the whole that makes for greater liberty.
  Though I am sure there never has arisen, there might arise an occasion when, for one reason or another, the officials of the Department would not desire to prosecute. That has not arisen in Northern Ireland, nor in Scotland, but it is always a danger that is there, and then the ordinary person is left helpless. I have myself taken part in England in both Crown prosecutions and private prosecutions, and my experience has been that the private person moves very reluctantly; he knows that he will probably have to pay certainly quite an amount of the costs which he can never recover, and he would much prefer the prosecution to be done by the police, or by other official bodies. There are occasions, however, when it is inexpedient or difficult for public persons to prosecute, and the private person then has to do so.
  Mr. Boothby: This is an important matter and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me interrupting once again. Surely he must see that it is repugnant, or might be repugnant, to a great many people to bring a private prosecution. Therefore, a great many private prosecutions will never take place, but if it were
  298
  a case of merely giving information to the Procurator Fiscal many private owners who caught somebody poaching would be prepared to do that and let the Public Prosecutor prosecute, if necessary, rather than prosecute themselves.
  Mr. Gage: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend is perfectly right, but this really is not taking any right from the Public Prosecutor. It is merely saying that those people who do not wish to prosecute could go to the officials concerned, but those who may be able to afford it and do not wish to place a burden on the Lord Advocate's Department can pursue this criminal matter themselves. The Lord Advocate is the first member of the Department whom I have ever heard reject something which might save a good deal of work for what are, I am sure, his overworked officials in these prosecutions.
  Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman is pointing out that if a private prosecutor does not desire to proceed he need not proceed. Is there not equally the danger that a person who can well afford to initiate a prosecution, a person to whom money does not matter, might turn it into a persecution? In other words, if people can, for personal reasons, not prosecute, might there not also be people who, for personal reasons, will instigate a prosecution against somebody, even though the case does not succeed, and carry out a personal vendetta against somebody else in the district? That would be quite improper. If the evidence is submitted to the Lord Advocate's Department in Scotland, or to the Public Prosecutor, it is sifted and it is for the Public Prosecutor to decide whether there is sufficient evidence on which to bring anyone into court.
  Mr. Gage: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has far more confidence in the very brilliant judges who sit on the Scottish Bench than he appears to have from what he has just said.
  Mr. Woodburn: That is not the point. If a matter is brought into court some of the stigma sticks, and damage might be done which ought not to be done when there is no evidence to justify bringing a prosecution.
  Mr. Gage: If anyone is so foolish as to bring a prosecution in those circum-

  299
  stances, the judge invariably not only acquits the person charged but makes it very clear that it is a case in which the prosecution ought never to have been brought and awards heavy costs. In criminal cases—and here I speak subject to correction on the practice in Scotland—in England the costs are not taxed; the judge can award any sum he wishes to the defendant in the case. That in itself is a tremendous deterrent against people bringing private prosecutions. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, from my own experience, that in England people do not bring private prosecutions just for the pleasure of persecuting people. I never heard of a case where that was done, and I am sure it never has been. They do it from a sense of duty.
  There are sometimes cases where private ownership is infringed, and those are just the sorts of case where there might well be a private prosecution. I can understand the Lord Advocate's argument in the case of a major criminal offence such as manslaughter, murder or treason; that type of thing should not be the subject of a private prosecution. But here, of course, part of the offence is the infringement of private rights, and it therefore seems to me that those are peculiarly appropriate cases for private prosecutions.
  I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept this principle. I am aware that there is some difficulty in the drafting, which, I have no doubt, can be put right. I feel very strongly on this matter. I have had a certain amount of experience in my own country, where the law is similar to that in Scotland, and I think that the right to private prosecutions would not be abused, but would be, as it were, of substantial assistance to the ordinary liberties of private people.
  The Lord Advocate: I apologise to the Committee for speaking again on this subject, but in view of the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), I feel that I should intervene, because this is a matter of great principle so far as our law in Scotland is concerned. I have a great respect, admiration and liking for the hon. Gentleman, who usually makes very useful contributions to our debates. I say that in all sincerity. I must say, however, with
  300
  regret, that this occasion is an exception. I think he spoke in this instance without, if I may say so, the proper background of our legal system in Scotland. For instance he talked about the right of a court to award costs, and sometimes heavy costs, in a case. That does not play any part in the law of Scotland.
  Mr. Gage: I said that I spoke subject to correction.
  8.30 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman prayed in aid as part of his argument that it was a deterrent, and I felt quite naturally that perhaps he did not have sufficient background knowledge of our procedure to enable him to get a proper appreciation. I see that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just come into the Chamber, which is fortunate or, perhaps, unfortunate, in view of what I am going to say. The hon. Member for Belfast, South, said that having balanced the matter as fairly as he could, he thought that the English system of prosecution was better than the Scottish.
  Mr. Gage: And Northern Ireland.
  The Lord Advocate: I know that I shall be accused of being partisan, but I think the law of Scotland is better than the law of England. I say, with deference to the Home Secretary, that within that generalisation I am satisfied that the criminal law of Scotland is considerably better than the criminal law of England—even with the verdict of "not proven," and with no hearings in magistrates' courts before a person comes to be tried.
  Mr. Carmichael: Do not rub it in.
  The Lord Advocate: That being so, I think there would be a certain degree of perturbation throughout Scotland if it were thought that the House of Commons and this Committee were seeking to bring our traditional method of prosecution into line with the alien method employed in England. I am rather surprised to find so many hon. Members opposite, not from Northern Ireland, but from Scotland, with one notable exception, giving support to this proposition, because people will wonder why we should isolate this case, why we should make this case the exception.

  301
  Why, if we confine prosecutions to the Public Prosecutor in other spheres, must we retain the right to the private prosecutor in this sphere? It is against the whole tendency of our law. If we come to the principle which was argued by the hon. Member for Belfast, South, I think it is much better before a person is brought into court at all that the decision should be made by a person who has no interest in the case other than his public duty of administering the law. Once the case comes into court it is a matter for the court to determine whether a person is guilty or not.
  Mr. Gage: I am sure the Lord Advocate is not implying that private prosecutors in England have any interest in the case except to see that the law is enforced?
  The Lord Advocate: With all due respect, they may not have, but we are dealing with the type of prosecutor in this case—whether it be a board or a company—whose special function is to protect Certain interests in this particular sphere. The Public Prosecutor is motivated by no considerations of that nature, and we must remember that even if the person is brought into court and acquitted, the unfortunate thing is that often a stigma attaches to him albeit he has been acquitted. Therefore, we should not lightly allow people to have the right of bringing a fellow citizen into court and facing him with that stigma. As one Italian client said to me on one occasion, trying to use an old Scottish expression, "There's nae smoke without reek."
  In those circumstances, I defend the general principle, which is a fundamental and cardinal principle of our administration of criminal law, of vesting the right in the Public Prosecutor. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) for his support and recollection of the attitude of one of my predecessors who was a Member of his own Government, in relation to this matter.
  I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Colonel Boles) does not understand the procedure. He complained that the Public Prosecutor would not be the man on the spot, whereas the private prosecutor would be. We do not prosecute people on the spot. We do not hold our courts on the river, but
  302
  in the sheriff court buildings. We are not concerned about the prosecutor at that stage; we are concerned about the person collecting the necessary evidence to justify the prosecution. If that evidence is available and collected and the person passes it on to the Public Prosecutor and he thinks that it justifies a prosecution, there will be a prosecution. If he does not pass on the evidence, then the Public Prosecutor will not have the evidence and there win not be a prosecution; but that does not alter the position, because if he does not pass on the evidence, presumably he would not have prosecuted himself had he been a private prosecutor. In those circumstances, I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's objection to that procedure.
  I do not know what he meant about the case of the Forestry Commission, but, in any event, it is covered by the general principle which I have enunciated. People have a public duty to report to the Commission any offence, and we trust that they will do so. If the evidence comes before the Public Prosecutor and it justifies a prosecution, there will be a prosecution. I invite the Committee for these and other reasons which I have submitted to reject the Amendment.
  Commander Galbraith: We have had a very interesting debate on this subject. I was surprised that the Lord Advocate succeeded in raising a certain amount of heat in defending his principle. Hon. Members on this side who have spoken appear to me to be also defending a principle. I, too, was rather worried when the Lord Advocate referred to tradition, because surely the right of a particular individual to prosecute has existed for a number of years.
  The Lord Advocate: I meant the general tradition in Scotland, not the tradition in relation to this particular type of offence.
  Commander Galbraith: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks of tradition, I think that what he means is the tendency of the law to remove the right, not the tradition. It is a process that has been going on, but it is not a tradition in the real meaning of the word. But that is a small matter.
  The Lord Advocate seems to have been fortified in his argument by the view of the Lord President. Naturally, there is

  303
  no one in this House or in Scotland who does not listen with all seriousness to any view expressed by the Lord President of the Court of Session; but it may well be that there is other eminent legal opinion that may take a contrary view. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that there is no such opinion?
  The Lord Advocate: No, but if that challenge is going to be made, I think I can enlist the support of the Lord Justice General. If it is suggested that an equally eminent authority would take a contrary view, surely the onus is upon the mover of the Amendment to produce that evidence.
  Commander Galbraith: I think that is a reasonable statement to make. It may well be that there is other eminent legal opinion which takes a contrary view to that of the Lord President, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in a position to deny it, because he does not know any more than I do. I think that it is very probable that such opinion does in fact exist.
  I agree with what the right hon. and and learned Gentleman has said about the efficiency and diligence of the Public Prosecutor and his deputies. No one would seek to say anything to the contrary. But what I have in mind—and I am going upon certain experiences which one has had in the course of one's lifetime—is that there is a great unwillingness on the part of the Public Prosecutor to bring a prosecution unless he can be reasonably certain that there will be a conviction. It is no good the right hon. and learned Gentleman looking so surprised. I am telling him of my experience, and I have a perfect right to say that. It is no good the right hon. and learned Gentleman flying into the air as he has done already this evening. We are having a quiet and careful discussion, and I am at perfect liberty to put my views as he is to put his. My experience is that Public Prosecutors are sometimes enjoined not to prosecute unless they feel they have the evidence to secure a conviction.
  The Lord Advocate: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves that point, the Committee should be kept right as to the duty of the Public Prosecutor. He
  304
  is not entitled to initiate a prosecution unless there is before him evidence which, if accepted by the court, would entitle the court to convict. That is the criterion to which he should apply himself.
  Commander Galbraith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is proving the point that I have made, and I am grateful to him for his assistance in that direction.
  Here we are dealing with officials, who are working at continuous pressure with a great mass of matters to consider, and they have to decide whether a prosecution should be taken or not. A comparatively minor offence is here brought to their notice. It is only human in those circumstances if those officials feel that they have many other things to do, that the matter is trifling in comparison with other things, and that therefore, they will not proceed.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised the point of the great stigma which attaches to anyone who is prosecuted for poaching and brought before the court. Having listened to a great deal of this debate and the debate on the same Measure on a previous occasion, I have almost come to the conclusion that there is no stigma for poaching whatsoever. That is a view that is honestly held not only by many hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, but by Members on this side of the Committee. On the other hand, according to the Lord Advocate, anyone brought into court for poaching has a terrible black mark against his name and reputation for ever afterwards. It just is not so, and that argument does not hold water.
  What we on this side of the Committee are trying to do is to make this Bill effective, and I suggest that it is in the interests of the Bill that we leave this right in the hands of private individuals. We are not making a new right, but are merely leaving a right which has existed for I do not know how long. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me how long this right of private prosecution has existed in our country.
  The Lord Advocate: What has that got to do with it?
  Commander Galbraith: It has a great deal to do with it.
  The Lord Advocate: For over 100 years.
  Commander Galbraith: This right has existed for over 100 years, and I have not heard any hon. Member or even the right hon. and learned Gentleman bring forward evidence to the effect that this has been misused. There is no evidence of anything of that kind at all. Therefore, I suggest that what has been the law for over 100 years might well in those circumstances be allowed to continue. That is my view.
  Mr. Carmichael: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is arguing that because a law has existed for 100 years we should not interfere with it, then we should withdraw the Bill which we are considering now.
  8.45 p.m.
  Commander Galbraith: That might be the hon. Gentleman's desire; it is not
  mine. I want the Bill to go through. I think it is a very good Bill, and what I am trying to do is to strengthen it in every way we can. In view of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage) and other Members on this side of the Committee, I hope we shall proceed to a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, certainly, because I am absolutely convinced that the principle on one side is as strong as the principle on the other, and we have every reason to support a tradition which has hitherto existed for so long.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 188.

  Division No. 33.]

  AYES

  [8.47 p.m

  Aitken, W. T.

  Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

  Pickthorn, K.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Amory, D. Heathcoal (Tiverton)

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Price, H. A. (Lewisham W.)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

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

  Raikes, H. V.

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

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Rayner, Brigadier R

  Baker, P.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S

  Redmayne, M.

  Baldock J. M.

  Heald, L. F.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)

  Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Roper, Sir H.

  Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Ropner, Col. L

  Birch, Nigel

  Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

  Russell, R. S.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Black, C. W.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

  Scott, Donald

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

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Braine, B.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Hurd, A. R.

  Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

  Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

  Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

  Hylton-Foster, H. B.

  Storey, S.

  Burden, Squadron Leader F. A

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)

  Carson, Hon. E.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Summers, G. S

  Channon, H.

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Sut liffe, H.

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

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

  Teevan, L. T.

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

  Lindsay, Martin

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Colegate, A.

  Llewellyn, D.

  Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

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

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F

  Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

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

  Tilney, John

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Touche, G. C.

  Crouch, R. F.

  McAdden, S. J.

  Turton, R. H.

  Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip—Northwood)

  McKibbin, A.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

  Darling, Sir W. Y (Ed nburgh, S)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Vosper, D. F.

  de Chair, S.

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Drewe, C.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Watkinson, H.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

  Dunglass, Lord

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  While, J. Baker (Canterbury)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Eccles, D. M.

  Nabarro, G.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Nicholls, H.

  Wills, G.

  Fort, R.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Foster, J. G.

  Odey, G. W.

  York, C.

  Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

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

  Gage, C. H.

  Osborne, C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Mr. Studholme and Mr. Heath.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Peto, Brig. C H. M

  NOES

  Albu, A H

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Neal, H.

  Allen, A C (Bosworth)

  Grey, C. F.

  Orbach, M

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Grimond, J.

  Padley, W. E.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

  Pannell, T. C

  Bacon, Miss A

  Hannan, W.

  Peart, T. F.

  Barnes, Rt Hon. A. J

  Hardy, E. A.

  Poole, Cecil

  Bartley, P

  Hargreaves, A

  Popplewell, E

  Benn, Hon. A N Wedgwood

  Harrison, J.

  Porter, G.

  Benson, G.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Proctor, W. T.

  Bing, G. H C

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pryde, D. J

  Boardman, H

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pursey, Commander H

  Boothby, R.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Rankin, J

  Bottomley, A. G>

  Holman, P.

  Rees, Mrs. D

  Bowden, H W

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Reeves, J.

  Bowen, R

  Houghton, Douglas

  Rhodes, H.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hoy, J.

  Richards, R.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

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

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Broughton, Dr A. D. D

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Janner, B.

  Royle, C.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Burke, W A

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Burton, Miss E.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Simmons, C. J

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

  Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

  Slater, J.

  Carmichael, James

  Keenan, W.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Castle, Mrs B. A

  Kenyon, C.

  Snow, J. W.

  Champion, A. J

  Kinley, J.

  Sorensen, R. W

  Clunie, J.

  Lee, F. (Newton)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir F

  Coldrick, W

  Lever, L M (Ardwick)

  Steele, T.

  Collick, P.

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

  Stross, Dr. B

  Collindridge, F.

  Lindgren. G S.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

  Cook, T. F.

  Logan, D. G.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Cooper, G. (Middlesbrougn, W.)

  Longden, F. (Small Heath)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Cove, W. G.

  McAllister, G.

  Taylor R. J. (Morpeth)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Dalton, Rt Hon. H.

  Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)

  Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W)

  Davies, A Edward (Stoke, N.)

  McGovern, J.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  McInnes, J.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Deer, G

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Timmons, J.

  Delargy, H J

  McLeavy, F.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Donnelly, D

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Ungoed-Thomas, A. L

  Dye, S.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Viant, S. P.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

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

  Wade, D. W.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Wallace, H. W

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Weitzman, D.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Fornyhough, E

  Messer, F.

  West, D. G.

  Finch, H. J.

  Middleton, Mrs. L

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

  Follick, M

  Mitchison, G. R.

  White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)

  Forman, J. C

  Moeran, E. W.

  Whileley, Rt. Hon. W

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Moody, A. S.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C A B.

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Morley, R.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

  Gilzean, A.

  Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mort, D. L

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Gooch, E G.

  Moyle, A.

  Yates, V. F.

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Greenwood, A. W J. (Rossendale)

  Murray, J. D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Greenwood. Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Nally, W.

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  New Clause.—(POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO CONDUCT INQUIRIES AND TO OBTAIN INFORMATION.)
  (1) For the purpose of protecting and developing stocks of salmon and trout the Secretary of State shall have power—

  (a) to conduct inquiries and investigations into questions of practical or scientific im-
  308
  portance to salmon and freshwater fisheries, and for such purpose to enter on and conduct such operations as may be necessary in any fishery, provided always that no damage shall he done to such fishery and that no interference shall be caused to the rights of the owner or occupier of such fishery;

  (b) to collect such statistics relating to the number of salmon caught in any salmon fishery and the species, description and weight, and method and date of capture of such salmon as may be deemed necessary, and to require any proprietor or occupier of a salmon fishery to furnish him with

  309
  such statistics relating to such matters in such form and at such times as he may order; and

  (c) to publish such statistics in such manner as may seem to him proper so as to show the catch by—

  (i) rod and line fishing,

  (ii) net fishing within estuary limits, and

  (iii) net fishing outside estuary limits,

  in any district: provided that such statistics shall not be published in such form as to disclose the actual numbers of salmon caught in any one fishery within the period of ten years preceding such publication.

  (2) Any proprietor or occupier who wilfully refuses or neglects to comply with any order made in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection, or makes any statement in relation to such an order which is false in a material particular, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.—[The Lord Advocate.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The purpose of this Clause is to enable the Secretary of State, acting in the interests of Scotland, to get the necessary information in relation to freshwater fisheries. Certain investigations have been carried out and are at present being carried out—for example, an investigation into the migration of salmon and the possibility of improving the stocks of trout. At present, however, we are dependent on the voluntary co-operation of proprietors. At this stage I would like to pay a tribute to that voluntary co-operation and to the facilities which have been given. Salmon proprietors have allowed the officers of the Department to tag salmon, and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board have provided accommodation at Pitlochry for investigation into brown trout.
  These investigations have been carried out under the general powers of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in relation to fisheries. Anyone who has had any experience of fish in Scotland will recognise the importance of such investigations, but to get full information so that the investigation might be complete and the research as comprehensive as possible it is deemed advisable to have these statutory powers. The rights of owners and occupiers of fisheries are protected in paragraph (a) inasmuch as it is specifically provided that no damage shall be done to the fisheries and that no interference shall be caused to the rights of the owner or occupier of such fisheries.
  310
  Paragraph (b) empowers the Secretary of State to collect from the proprietors and occupiers statistics of salmon which have been caught. At present the Department is dependent for information on returns furnished by railway and steamship authorities. The total catch has to be estimated on the basis of these figures, and they are obviously of a limited nature and value. So that Government policy for protection and development of the salmon fisheries may be based on sound knowledge of the industry, more detailed information is required. Accordingly, it is the object of paragraph (b) to enable such information to be collected.
  Paragraph (c) provides for the publication of statistics, but care is taken to withhold the disclosure of information relating to particular undertakings until a period of 10 years has elapsed. In other words, what is contemplated is that there may be publication in the annual reports on Scottish fisheries in relation to a particular year without disclosing at the time the returns from the fisheries of an owner. This means that the confidential information which he will have given to the Department will not be made available to the public until the expiry of 10 years when, of course, no real damage could occur by its disclosure.
  On the other hand, it will be possible to give the general picture at the time of the returns in a particular area. We feel that if we are to tackle this aspect of the development of our fishing stocks by scientific research these powers are necessary to supplement the existing voluntary co-operation which we are getting from the owners. I trust, therefore, that in the interest of scientific research and the improvement of our fishing stocks in Scotland, the new Clause will commend itself to the Committee.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I want to raise a practical point with regard to paragraph (b) which may give rise to some difficulty if attention is not paid to it. This paragraph will, of course, apply to net sea fishing as well as to rod and line fishings. Here we are dealing with very considerable businesses, many of them operating numerous different fishing stations, each of which, I suppose, might well be a separate fishery.

  311
  The sort of thing that happens—I know, because there is one of these big concerns in my constituency—is that a concern of this kind might operate as many as 20 different fishing stations. Lorries would have to collect fish from over an area of 20, 30 or 40 miles—I know of one case in which the distance is 50 miles—of coast. According to the tide, these lorries are picking up fish from the different stations and coming into the central depot. All the fish are mixed together, iced and boxed. They come in at mid-day and have to catch the 1 p.m. train to the South. It all has to be done as quickly as that in certain conditions of the tide.
  If these people are to have to take elaborate notes about the exact weight of each fish and from exactly which station they come, then the scheme would operate very much against their being able to get the fish to the market in fresh condition. I do not imagine that any such thing would, in fact, happen, but I issue this note of warning. Many of these fishings are hired from the Crown on Crown leases, and the Crown requires particulars to be given of the number of fish caught, the species or description, and weight but they accept these returns on a yearly basis and are quite prepared to accept average weights. I hope that that sort of thing would be accepted by the Secretary of State and that whoever drew up the instructions to be drawn up under the Clause would bear in mind the practical difficulties I have tried to outline, in the requiring of exact particulars and weights of every fish caught at every station.
  I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would be as exacting as that—I hope not. I have sought these details from my constituents who are concerned in these things, and I understand it would be quite possible to give particulars of weight, classification, species, and so on, of the fish over a six-monthly period, or perhaps over a monthly period, or even daily, so long as it is not required in respect of every separate station. It all boils down to what is meant by a "separate fishery." If it means a separate station, then there would be difficulties. I am not against the Clause—I think it is a good one; but I want merely to sound the note of warning that
  312
  it might be very difficult to operate the scheme unless these practical considerations are borne in mind.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(THE WEEKLY CLOSE TIME.)
  (1) No person shall fish for or take salmon during Sunday.
  (2) No person shall fish for or take salmon (except during Saturday or Monday, by rod and line) during the weekly close time.
  (3) The weekly close time shall extend from the hour of twelve noon on Saturday to the hours of six on the following Monday morning.
  (4) If any person contravenes this section he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.—[Mr. McNeil.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I am not quite clear about the easiest way to deal with the Clause. Perhaps I might explain that we have had conferences offstage in various parts of the Committee and that I think the Clause meets most wishes. I have no doubt that the proposition which I offered originally—that we should have a close time of 48 hours—was a better one. However, we all saw clearly from the beginning that there would be difficulties in operating a close time from, say, 6 a.m. on a Saturday to 6 a.m. on a Monday. We cast about to try to find methods of meeting the practical working difficulties of that proposal. We have met those difficulties, and also the objections which were offered by the associations actually working this kind of method, by reducing the proposed weekly close time from 48 to 42 hours.
  It will also be noticed that in offering this concession—because I think it is a concession—I have departed from the ancillary proposition which I offered at one time of having local variations. If we are doing so much to meet the interests of the companies and of the associations, I think we had better do it flatly and make sure that the full benefit of the 42 hours is secured. It will be observed also, although it is not strictly relevant to the Clause, that I am adhering to the undertaking I gave that the operation of the scheme should be reviewed.
  There is good reason to believe that this extension of the close time will, in

  313
  a number of years, benefit the stocks of all and benefit the operators, both employers and employees, but it would be better, since there is no hard and fast and inescapable scientific evidence on the subject, that we should review it at an appropriate time and that I am proposing to do. I will be glad to try to answer questions if necessary, but I know the Committee are so familiar with the subject and various aspects of it that I have moved the Motion in this comparatively brief fashion.
  Mr. Boothby: I know the Committee are anxious to get on and that we are all anxious to get through the Bill, but I wish to say that as a representative of a constituency which has substantial fishing interests, both at sea and inland, both of net fishermen and riparian owners, that I think this represents the most satisfactory compromise that could have been reached. There was, naturally, a clash of interests; there always is in these matters. I think this the best compromise and for my part, and on behalf of my constituents, I welcome it. No one is completely satisfied and that makes me feel that it is probably the best thing that could be done.
  Captain Duncan: I am prepared to accept this compromise, particularly when I notice the heading of the next proposed new Clause:
  "Inquiry into working of weekly close time."
  I accept it in the nature of an instalment and I am not convinced that it should be 42 hours for ever. I am not convinced that 42 hours will be enough. I have particularly in mind cases where the sea is netted and the river is netted and, under certain conditions of spate and tide, the fish may not be able to get both through the sea nets and through the river nets in the slack time. Forty eight hours may well be necessary in certain rivers, at any rate where river netting is carried out as well as sea netting.
  While accepting the proposed new Clause, I would urge that inquiry under the next proposed new Clause should be carried on at the earliest possible moment so that we can assure ourselves that stocks of fish are not being eaten into too much even to the extent of the slack we are to have under this Clause.
  Mr. Manuel: I am sorry that the Secretary of State has altered his mind from the original provision of the Bill. Angling clubs have pressed for many years that these nets, particularly at the mouths of rivers, should be off for a much longer period. While it is true that 42 hours is a fairly lengthy period, we have also to remember that a further six hours might make all the difference to the run of fish getting up a river.
  To enable the fish to get up to the upper reaches and within the ambit of angling clubs inland, we must have, in addition to nets, the necessary flow of water and spate conditions, in some instances, to allow the sea trout or salmon to get into these upper reaches. I feel that there has been a complete consensus of opinion throughout Scotland, at any rate so far as the angling clubs are concerned. We are fortunate in the type of angling clubs and club members which we have in Scotland. They are always out to see that the best in angling is retained, and decry the ulterior methods which are sometimes employed to extract the fish.
  The Secretary of State has certainly said that this proviso will be reviewed not earlier than 1956. But a large volume of opinion in Scotland will be deeply disappointed that the provision of 48 hours is not coming fully into operation now, to allow for more and greater movement of fish, and better spawning conditions to attract more fish in future years.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I have great sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel), because I have already put my name to an Amendment which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stewart) and which supported the Secretary of State in his original declaration that he wished the close time extended to 48 hours. Our Amendment is only to have the hours put forward from six on Saturday to six on Monday to the hours of noon and noon.
  I must here declare an interest as I have for many years enjoyed the right to fish the River Don in Aberdeenshire, and the right also to fish the River Dee. I know from that experience that when the owners on the River Dee got together

  315
  and managed to buy off some of the nets at the mouth of the river, it had a very salutary effect on the stocks of fish in that river. So far as possible I have tried to take a balanced view on this matter, because in my constituency in South Aberdeen I have many people who are interested in the commercial side of fishing.
  The whole object of the Clauses of the Secretary of State, both the old one and the new, is to preserve the stocks of fish in the river. I know what has gone on behind the scenes and of the many different interests he has tried to reconcile. I have come to the conclusion that I shall support him in the new Clause which extends the time merely from 36 to 42 hours. Taken together with all the difficulties, I feel that that is an average compromise.
  I am glad he has decided that he will review this matter in five years' time, which, of course, is the cycle of life of the salmon, because it is not until five years hence that we shall be able properly to judge the damage which has been done by the fish gangs; and to what extent the small fry and the life of the river has been desecrated. I hope that if in five years it is proved that that is not an adequate period, he will again take his courage in his hands—although I am afraid he will not be there—but whoever is there in a Tory Government will take his courage in his hands and review the matter again.
  Mr. McNeil: The hon. Lady will forgive me, but I cannot help remarking how many Tory Governments have missed that chance.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: It would be unbecoming of me, representing my constituency, if I did not express some observations upon this new Clause. I congratulate the Minister on the compromise he has arrived at. The 48 hours close season proposed by the Bill as introduced was too long. The present close time of 36 hours has worked well. The Bill proposed to make it 48 hours, and this new Clause now makes it 42 hours. That is a satisfactory compromise and I wish to congratulate the Minister upon it for a variety of reasons which it would take a considerable time to
  316
  explain; but I do not propose to go into detail in the circumstances, and I content myself with saying that I thank him for this new Clause.
  Lieut.-Colonel Boles: I want to give a warning on the subject of the inquiry into the working of this new Clause. It must be remembered when statistics are taken of the returns of fish caught that we shall have one of the nine-year cycles in 1951, when the catch is likely to be very small compared with other years. Apparently, there is a nine-year cycle when the catch is very small, and one of those years will be included in the statistics. That should be taken into consideration.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: I do not doubt the mathematics of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), but no one has yet expressed the opposite points of view in support of 36 hours. I have considerable diffidence and reluctance in adding my name to the compromise, but in the circumstances, it is a sensible compromise which may well be accepted. In fact, in my part of the world it eases one difficulty, which was that there were different hours in operation on the north and on the south of the Solway. That position has now been equalised, which is a good thing in itself.
  It occurred to me that, when considering the main purpose of this Bill, which is the suppression of poaching, this change of hours would make it difficult to arrive at any proper conclusions. Two factors will have their effect on the fish population, and it will be impossible to separate them. Perhaps it would have been better—and it will be better when next this matter is reviewed—to consider what is the state of the fish in various years and to take the necessary action about close time as a result. It might well be that a suitable close time for some rivers would be 48 hours: for others it would be 36. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever deals with this matter when it comes to be reviewed, will bear in mind that consideration.
  Mr. McKie: I should like to confess a personal as well as constituency interest in this matter. I am very glad that my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), has also taken the

  317
  opportunity of presenting the minority view. It is a very old axiom in this House of Commons that the Opposition point of view should be adequately expressed. I fully support what my hon. Friend has just said about the grave apprehensions expressed by those engaged in the Solway stake net fishing with regard to the extension of time to 48 hours instead of the 36 hours which has been in operation there for such a long period.
  My personal interest which I mentioned concerns the stake net fishing, but I have the larger constituency interest so far as the rivers are concerned, and it is shared by my hon. Friend who has just spoken. Perhaps it is not generally understood on the other side or in the Committee generally, because we are presenting the views of a very few people who are engaged in the stake net fishing industry, that peculiar conditions prevail in the Solway Firth. Owing to the very swift ebb and flow of the tides, the closing period which has been in existence for so long has, in fact, been a 48-hour period all through, and the Secretary of State will realise that, by this extension and this compromise, these people will suffer an additional hardship.
  However, we have founded much of our legislation upon the spirit of compromise, and I think that all parties should agree to this extended period. I hope that the review will soon be undertaken, and that, as a result of what has happened—I see the Secretary of State shakes his head, but he should not be too sure—
  Mr. McNeil: I would merely point out that, under the next new Clause, if it is accepted, there will be a statutory limit as to when the review should take place, and I could not undertake to do it earlier.
  Mr. McKie: I hope that the review will take place as soon as possible, and that, as a consequence, if there is any hardship concerning this small but very important section of the fishing industry, that hardship will be taken into account.
  Lord Dunglass: May I shed a tear with the Secretary of State over his original proposal? I thought it was a good idea that, if any provision of this kind was to be made, it must be imposed from above, because it is quite
  318
  impossible to expect people engaged in industry and commerce to take a long view.
  I think that, for the purposes of the record, it might be interesting to give certain figures which we have obtained from the Tweed in the last few months, looking back over the years, because I think they show the amount of damage and waste which we have to make up as a result of the war years. We took a section of the river and compared these figures for the five years before the war with those of the five years following it. The result is that the spring fish caught by the rod are down by 30 per cent., and the autumn fish caught by the rod are down by 70 per cent. On the coast, as far as net fishing is concerned, salmon and grilse are down by 52 per cent., and sea trout are down by 67 per cent.
  These figures indicate the extent of the damage and waste which we have to make up, and therefore I wish that the Secretary of State could have stuck to his original proposal. However, as he says, anything in this direction is an improvement, and this is admittedly a working compromise. I hope the statistics which he will collect will enable the five-year review period to provide for the review to be made and appropriate action taken. Therefore, I suggest that we should agree with the present proposals.
  Mr. Pryde: I am not very happy about the compromise on this new Clause, especially in view of the contribution made by the noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass). I think this is a lamentable confession of failure on the part of the Tweed Commissioners. Everyone agrees in Peebles that there are fewer butchers than ever before, and also that salmon in the Tweed are fewer than ever before. The contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is a logical one. If there is a 48-hour free run for salmon, there will be more fish in the river. I do not see why there should be any interference at all with rod and line fishing. Indeed, years of experience have proved that no damage is done to the breeding of salmon in the River Tweed by even the biggest catches when using the legal rod and line.
  The fact is that, so far as this Committee is concerned, this Bill has become a River Tweed Bill. The greatest dis-

  319
  appointment of all is the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). In the debates on the Gracious Speech, he put the blame for this legislation on his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), and said that it would be legislation from the least reactionary section of the community. Tonight he is adding fuel to the fire by telling us that from his experience it is far better to be more reactionary than the most reactionary elements of the community. Surely it would have been far better if my right hon. Friend had listened rather to the angling clubs of the country, to men with experience. I deeply regret that my right hon. Friend has committed this side of the Committee to a compromise.
  Mr. McNeil: I am very grateful for the sympathy of my hon. Friend and not ungrateful for the sympathy of the noble Lord opposite. I have no doubt that my original proposal was a better one than that offered today, but my job is to get a Bill which is acceptable, as broadly as possible, to the people concerned, and one which will be operable. I hope that my hon. Friend, whose interest in this subject is passionate and well-founded, will not believe that I have committed a heinous crime. I have done something which is quite normal in the shaping of a Bill. I have tried to achieve an end which will have some merit, and which will be acceptable to the people who are to be affected by it. That is quite commonplace, and, while I am grateful for the sympathy extended to me, I hope that my sin will be understood and forgiven.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Brigadier Thorp: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 7, at the end, to add:
  (5) Except that subsection (3) of this Clause shall not apply to so much of the River Tweed as is outwith Scotland.
  I have no hesitation in moving this Amendment, because I think there are special things which affect the portion of the River Tweed towards its mouth which is outwith Scotland. I do not wish to delay the Committee by repeating what I said during the Second Reading debate, but I am very disappointed that we are
  320
  not to remain as we were with regard to the 36 hours. I have figures from the fisheries at the mouth of the river which prove conclusively that over a period of a season's fishing the average number of hours lost through using the nets will be over 50 a week. That is with a 42-hour week.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Secretary of State shakes his head, but the fishermen have helped to draw up this Amendment and I believe them. Those are the ebb tide hours. At the flood periods the number of hours lost per week will be 55. That is also with the 42 hours a week suggested in the new Clause. It will mean that the fishermen will be off the river at flood tide for an average of 55 hours per week, and during ebb tides for 50 hours. That is a very big drop in the amount of working hours in which these men can earn pay. It therefore means a very big drop in the amount of money they will get for their fish. I suggested, on Second Reading, that the drop would be something like 15 per cent. I think that that was correct, if not an under-estimate.
  There is certain fishing at the mouth of the River Tweed, on the pier and on the south bank, which is very dangerous to operate at night time. In fact, these places are so dangerous that there has been practically a stoppage on using them when there is a flood tide. This means that these fishers will have to give up extra time or else we shall drive them to dangerous work during the night under the provisions of this Clause. I want the Committee to know what may happen in that case. Men have been lost before, and it may be that if they find their money has dropped and they have to go and work extra time men will be lost again.
  Another reason why I have raised this matter with reference to the River Tweed is that, as I have mentioned before, we are the subject of a considerable anomaly with regard to rates. The nets pay rates on the English side, which includes practically all the salmon fishing there on both banks of the River Tweed. On the Scottish side and in Scotland, however, the net fishings are free of rates. That is completely unfair to those net fishers who operate on the English side of the river. I hope that something can be done very soon about it.
  Mr. McNeil: I regret I cannot accept the Amendment, for reasons which I think are quite obvious. With great respect, I submit that this picture of lost hours is scarcely presented in its proper context. Flood tide and ebb tide, late dawns and early nights—these will occur whether the closing time is 36, 42, or 48 hours.
  Brigadier Thorp: Six hours more.
  Mr. McNeil: Six hours more, I admit, but I suggest that this pathetic picture of the loss of 55 hours does not arise from the Bill. It is presented in the wrong context. What we are discussing about flood tides, ebb tides, late dawns and early nights is whether or not we are to extend six hours to the English part of the Tweed as we do to the Scottish.
  Brigadier Thorp: Does not the right hon. Gentleman also consider, when he is putting through a Bill like this, that extra hardship may be caused? Is the Bill the only thing? Is he not human as well?
  Mr. McNeil: I admitted on Second Reading, and I have already admitted twice this evening, that, immediately, the additional close time of six hours is a hardship, but that that is the utter, inclusive and complete measure of the additional hardship per week. Secondly, I suggest that it would be utterly unfair that the Scottish netters should be asked to observe a closing time of 42 hours and the English netters on the same river—
  Brigadier Thorp: What about the rates?
  Mr. McNeil: If the hon. and gallant Member wants to address himself to that subject I am sure he will, but not inside the context of this Bill.
  I would think it unjust that on the one river we should have operating two systems of close time. I certainly would not agree that the worse half should be visited upon the Scottish nets. If this brings benefits upon a river and the stocks in a river in a few years' time, it will do so upon the river as a whole; one section of the river will not benefit more than another. In imposing these additional six hours it should be conceded that the people who will benefit as a whole—that is, every net on the river—should, as a whole, agree to equal hard-
  322
  ship, if hardship there must be. I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed new Clause negatived.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(INQUIRY INTO WORKING OF WEEKLY CLOSE TIME.)
  (1) In the year nineteen hundred and fifty-eight or such earlier year not earlier than nineteen hundred and fifty-six as the Secretary of State may determine, the Secretary of State shall, in consultation with such associations and persons as he may think fit, investigate the operation of the provisions of this Act relating to the weekly close time.
  (2) The Secretary of State shall cause a report of the result of any investigation under this section to be laid before Parliament.—[Mr. McNeil.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I will move this Motion formally, with your permission, Mr. Bowles, and the permission of the Committee, because in discussing an earlier Clause we also discussed this Clause.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(APPOINTMENT OF ANGLING BOARD.)
  (1) All angling leases, privileges and riparian rights shall expire on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, and full responsibility for care and maintenance of river banks, restocking of species and regulation of angling in rivers and lochs in Scotland shall be vested from that date in a Board of six persons who shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  (2) Legal title to fish for salmon, trout and other freshwater fish in Scotland will only be secured by possession of a licence (not transferable to other parties), to be issued by any Crown Post Office at a fee fixed by the aforesaid Board.
  (3) The aforesaid Board shall clearly define the terms "legal" and "illegal" methods of fishing.—[Mr. Pryde.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Pryde: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  All through the Bill I have indicated that the constituency which I have the great honour to represent has had a grievance in past years in connection with the angling on the great River Tweed. From my earliest days I have heard anglers say that the

  323
  rivers of Scotland are national assets and should be utilised in the national interest. From the evidence I have already adduced tonight there is no question but that the control of angling on the River Tweed, which is the main unit in our discussions—
  Mr. Boothby: That is not true. The hon. Gentleman should not say that it is the main unit; there are many other units of equal importance.
  Mr. Pryde: They have been conspicuous by their absence during all the discussions on the Bill. I have shown that there is a desire on the part of the people of Scotland to have a change in the ownership of the rivers and lochs of Scotland. Today, there is a tendency on the part of the riparian owners to regard themselves as salmon proprietors; in fact, they have been so described by the chairman of the Tweed Commissioners in the columns of the great national daily newspaper, "The Scotsman." The people of Scotland deny that.
  The right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) quoted a letter from the chairman of the Tweed Commissioners in which he said that the poached salmon in question had come from the Tweed area. I should like to know how that salmon was identified and what difference there was between that salmon and salmon from the Dee, Don, Tay and Spey, or any of the other rivers in the North of Scotland. Did they wear green and white jerseys or something like that? Members of the angling associations in the River Tweed are not getting a fair and square deal. Hem I would quote from an angler in the town of Peebles—an angler who is not a poacher, because he has not been caught. He says:
  "There exist charters which grant us rights undreamed of by most people here in Peebles. Such documents have been hidden away and conveniently forgotten."
  I contend that my proposed Clause will remove all the anomalies and troubles with regard to angling in Scotland. This new Clause makes it the obligation of the Government to see to it that the avers of Scotland are controlled and organised for the benefit of the economy of the country. Subsection (2) says:
  "Legal title to fish for salmon, trout and other freshwater fish in Scotland will only be
  324
  secured by possession of a licence (not transferable to other parties), to be issued by any Crown Post Office at a fee fixed by the aforesaid Board."
  Subsection (3) says that:
  "The aforesaid Board shall clearly define the terms of 'legal' and 'illegal ' methods of fishing."
  During all the discussions on the Bill this has never been defined.
  I was rather interested in the sight of staid old gentlemen on the other side of the Committee displaying a knowledge of "sniggling," the Scots term for which is "sneggling." I hope that we can get angling in Scotland based on what I term a reasonable method, such as exists in the other Commonwealth countries, where there is no private ownership of the rivers. Why should the old Mother Country be dragging behind? I ask hon. Members to take their courage in their hands and go into the Lobby to ensure that this Clause is incorporated in the Bill.
  I recall a fine Saturday morning when some of us from the mining areas of Midlothian went up the Tweed. Because the gentleman in question is still alive I will not give his name, but we will call him "Tommy." Tommy saw two water bailiffs coming up and he hastily changed his lure. The water bailiffs asked Tommy to show his lure, and he showed them a nice small round new potato. What do you expect to get with that?" the water bailiffs asked? "Come away" said one to the other, "He's soft."
  That night the two water bailiffs were on the platform at Peebles station, and as the train was coming round the bend the water bailiffs espied Tommy and said to him, "How did you get on?" Tommy said, "I got a basketful." "Let's see them" said the water bailiffs, and he showed them the basketful. "What did you get these with?" asked the water bailiffs. "With the tattie" said Tommy, and as he jumped into the carriage he looked at them and said, "but of course, I'm soft." The rest of us had none in our baskets, but Tommy had a basketful.
  The salmon roe lure is one of the deadliest lures of all, and he was using a salmon roe lure. There are some districts where spinning is not allowed because it has drag hooks which mutilate the fish. There are other places where even the dry fly is not allowed, and the witch and the otter are only

  325
  conglomerations of dry flies or wet flies, as the case may be, and positively illegal. We should face the problem of defining legal and illegal lures, and I am sure it is not beyond the capacity of this Committee to do so.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Rankin: I have great pleasure in supporting the Clause which had been so admirably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde). I am quite sure, in view of the sentiments which have been expressed in the Committee, that the purpose of this Clause will be warmly approved, because it will remove from the Bill the stigma which has been attached to it by some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House.
  I am anxious, Major Milner, not to get out of order, and I trust that you will keep me in order. The Bill has been stigmatised on this side of the Committee as a landlord's charter. We want to show that to be entirely wrong, and one method by which we can prove that this is not just a landlord's charter is to incorporate into the Bill this new Clause—I do not know how many people are addressing the Chair at present, but I hope that the committee meetings which are proceeding may be continued in some other part of the building. I am suggesting that to save this Measure from the stigma—perhaps the hon. Gentleman for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) will give me his attention—that it is a landlord's charter, we should add this Clause to the Bill.
  My hon. Friend dealt with three aspects of the new Clause. It is founded on very substantial evidence, and I want to give examples which have already become historical in the life of our country. I want to recall to the memory of the Committee evidence, which has never been disproved, that certain claims to land which were made in the past were based on force in some cases, on fraud in others, and merely by actual possession in a great many more. During the time the Coal Commission was sitting it was shown that much of the land of this country—
  The Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the new Clause.
  Mr. Rankin: I am simply using this as an example, Major Milner, to prove the case that the rights under which some people claim ownership were in many cases non-existent, and that the land which they possess had been granted to them by people who, in later life, were confined as lunatics, and who, in some cases, never passed beyond the mental age of childhood. Yet because of possession, they were able to grant these rights. It was shown when the Coal Commission was sitting—
  The Chairman: I do not think that the question of present ownership arises. The new Clause makes proposals for the future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to that.
  Mr. Rankin: I am trying to show that if the prescriptive rights that are now claimed for the possession of rivers and river banks were examined, they would not be on any better basis than some of those which have already been examined. That makes the new Clause one that is based on real substance, and because of that fact I am very glad indeed that my hon. Friend has seen fit to propose it. I hope the Secretary of State will see his way to accept it, because it will redeem the Bill and make it one which we on this side of the Committee can fully and completely support.
  Mr. McNeil: I am sure the Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), who has made his case with great directness, because it very much appeals to a Scotsman. It all depends under which conditions one is fishing, what time one is fishing at, who has been there before, and who one suspects will come after. I have every sympathy with the very good story which my hon. Friend told about Tommy and the potato. The truth, of course, was that Tommy did not catch the trout with the potato but he caught two water bailiffs. That is fair game any time.
  To come down from that delightful occupation to this new Clause is rather a big jump indeed. If we were discussing a Bill under which we proposed to close all greengrocers at five p.m. instead of six p.m., and my hon. Friend suddenly introduced a new Clause providing for the national ownership of these greengrocers, it would be analogous to what

  327
  we have before us tonight. If I set aside the principle and discuss the details of the Clause, my hon. Friend and I would find a good deal about which we should differ. On reflection, I think that my hon. Friend would agree that not every one capable of paying a small fee should be permitted to fish anywhere just by that simple act. We all know the skilful angler which my hon. Friend is, and we all know what would be the state of the banks of the Tweed if that were the case. I would indeed be disappointed if he were not the first to raise his voice.
  Moreover, I should not like to think that, however unsatisfactory the present system is, I were giving such wide powers to some board even if it comprised six people of the same character, ability, geniality and eloquence as my hon. Friend. If we accepted the principle we should have to find a more precise, and more workable formula than this. However, I cannot accept the principle because this is rather a large tail to fit to a comparatively small Bill. No one knows that more precisely than my hon. Friend. He has made a good speech in making his point of view, and he will, I am sure, understand the importance of the point of view of the Committee.
  Mr. Gage: I have a great deal of sympathy for the proposed new Clause. In my province of Ulster, all trout fishing is free. Any sincere sportsman and angler, as he wanders beside a river, would hate to think that anyone should be debarred from joining him in fishing. Sport should be shared by all types of people. I was taught my own fishing by a very humble soul who was one of the best sportsmen that I ever knew. It was on a very good piece of water in which anyone could fish. I know the practical difficulties, and it is true, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has said, that waters like that get over-fished and that, in the end, it often happens that instead of there being fishing for some there is no fishing for anyone.
  Another thing is that there must be a certain amount of preservation done, but we get nobody interested in it or doing it, and in that way the water soon gets worked out. There is no purpose in joining an angling club if one can have as much fishing as one likes. On the whole the present system in Scotland works very
  328
  well. Take Central Ayrshire. The admirable angling clubs there can exercise control of the waters and see that they are not over-fished. They have looked after the waters in that way.
  Subsection (2) proposes something that I have always thought should be done. People who fish, whether for salmon or trout, ought to take out a small licence, as they have to do with regard to game. I can see no harm in that proposal at all. Apart from whether fishing is free or not, that is a system I would advocate. If such a licensing system were introduced, it would do a tremendous lot to stop poaching. I do not want it to be thought that no one on this side of the Committee has a great sympathy with the Clause. All sportsmen like to see their sport enjoyed by others.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: There is a very great sympathy on this side with the proposed new Clause, and most Members would like to see taken under national ownership and control what is throughout the Bill regarded and protected as a national asset. We do not give our support to the Bill because of the privileges of private ownership of salmon. We give our support in the interest of safeguarding the stocks of what we believe to be a national asset. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) expressed what we feel, even in supporting the Bill in its present limited form. The new Clause proposes to provide for the future by doing away with many of the evils of the past and remedying many of the evils of the present.
  10.0 p.m.
  I recognise that the principle of the new Clause would not be contained within the principle of the Bill as it was accepted on Second Reading, because it proposes that we should set up a board for the purposes set out in the proposed Clause. I do not think it would be possible or feasible to contain this provision within a Bill of such a limited character as this one, the general principle of which we accepted on Second Reading. But I do not see that there could be any objection to a small fee being payable by everybody—with safeguards. That would create a participating interest among the general public in the protection of this national asset. The more people who become active fishermen, under safeguards, at the same time contributing

  329
  revenue for the conservation of stocks, the more we create a public spirit interested in putting down the poachers.
  The more we extend general interest and participation, the more likely we are to get enthusiastic protection of this important national asset. There appears to be considerable sympathy with this point of view in a new Clause proposed by the Liberal Party, which will probably get a great deal of support from this side of the Committee. I should not like to say anything in condemnation of anything contained in my hon. Friend's Clause. My only difficulty is to fit it into the already accepted principle of the Bill. We committed ourselves on Second Reading to acceptance of the Bill and its purpose, but I have every sympathy with the proposed Clause.
  Mr. Ross: Judging by the silence on the Opposition Benches while this Clause has been considered, it may well be that hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to get through the Bill, but I can assure them that the people of Ayrshire, and of Scotland in general, are very interested in the Clause. I have had letters from strange and various parts of Scotland from people not of my political complexion who think this is an excellent idea. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, with the interests which they have been supporting so strongly today, would even take note of the genesis of this support for the Clause, we might benefit because it has arisen very largely from the frustration of anglers in Scotland. This is not just anglers in certain areas. We can speak for our fine angling societies and clubs in Ayrshire, but there are extensive parts of Scotland in which no angling club can thrive—
  Sir William Darling: No river?
  Mr. Ross: It is not a case of there being no river. I wish that the hon. Gentleman who sits for one of the English parts of Scotland would have a look at the coastline on the map of Scotland again and see exactly how many rivers there are. I do not want to have to resume my former occupation and tell him the number but he is in considerable need of enlightenment. Angling clubs can only exist if they have access to rivers, and there are great stretches of river to which angling clubs are refused access.
  Major Hicks-Beach: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ross: I am afraid that I cannot.
  Hon. Members: Windy!
  Mr. Ross: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been telling us that we should hurry up because they want to get through the Bill. It will delay matters if I give way.
  Major Hicks-Beach: I should be extremely brief.
  Mr. Ross: The abuses which necessitate the Bill—they relate largely to ordinary poaching—arise because of difficulties in certain parts of Scotland in joining angling clubs and in the clubs getting decent stretches of water for fishing. There was evidence comparatively recently of considerable enthusiasm in Scotland among certain members of the nobility for the restoration of property long since taken away and now, we rather think, returned to Scotland. If they followed this up by handing back to the people of Scotland the stretches of river which they now consider their private property, it would not be at all a bad idea.
  I confess frankly that the arguments put forward by the Secretary of State regarding the major change this would make in the Bill are justified. Although the people who today own these stretches of rivers guard them so carefully that they will not let to local people, somehow or other these local people have the idea that they have a certain right to fish in those rivers. Perhaps it is strange that we should have that feeling about our local rivers. As a matter of fact, if one looks into the charter of the River Ayr, there was a time when they owned all the land and all the fishing rights between the Rivers Ayr and Doon. Where are they now? If those owners would appreciate the feeling of frustration amongst Scottish anglers at being debarred from fishing in their own rivers, and would make some gesture as has been made, for instance, about Macduff recently it would go a long way to meet the objections of our people at the present time.
  Major Hicks-Beach: Does that mean that the hon. Member agrees with the confiscation of private rights?
  Question put, and negatived.

  New Clause.—(GIVING WARNING OF APPROACH OF CONSTABLE OR WATER BAILIFF.)
  If any persons gives or causes to be given to any person who is or is about to be engaged in doing any act which constitutes an offence against this Act any signal or other warning of the approach of a constable or a water bailiff, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.—[Lord Dunglass.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Lord Dunglass: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  It is well known to us all that poaching gangs usually make use of an individual who is a collaborator and who gives warning of the approach of the bailiffs or police. He does not fulfil a very heroic rôle and he often gets off without any penalty or fine. This new Clause is brought forward in the hope that the Bill will be made to cover that type of person.
  The Lord Advocate: I am in full sympathy with the purpose behind this Amendment. It is quite unnecessary, however, because if a person is actively giving assistance to the commission of an offence, he is art and part in the commission of that offence and provision is made in Section 31 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949, making it beyond doubt that being art and part of the commission of a statutory offence is an offence in itself. Accordingly the person actively engaged in giving warning to people committing an offence would be equally guilty of that offence, just as the person who keeps watch outside the bank for those who go in to rob it is art and part in the commission of that offence. Accordingly the new Clause is quite unnecessary.
  Lord Dunglass: I thank the Lord Advocate for that information which is satisfactory to us. Therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New Clause.—(LICENCES TO DEAL IN SALMON AND TROUT.)
  (1) The justices of the peace for any county may, at any session held for that purpose, or for the purpose of granting licences to deal in game, grant to any person a licence to deal in salmon and trout at premises specified in the licence and situated within the county; and any such licence shall be in such form as the Secretary of State may by order provide, and there shall be payable to the clerk
  332
  of the peace in respect of any such licence a fee of five shillings:
  Provided that any person aggrieved by the refusal of the justices to grant him such licence may appeal to the sheriff, who on any such appeal may confirm the refusal or grant the licence, or make such other order as he shall think fit.
  In this subsection the expression "county" includes a county of a city.
  (2) Every licence to deal in salmon and trout shall (unless revoked in pursuance of subsection (7) of this section) continue in force until the expiration of one year from the date on which it was granted.
  (3) Every holder of a licence to deal in salmon and trout shall have his name exhibited over the door of the premises in respect of which the licence is granted in legible letters together with the words "licensed to deal in salmon and trout."
  (4) After the expiry of twelve months from the commencement of this Act no person shall sell, expose for sale or have in his possession for sale at any place any salmon or trout (other than salted, pickled, dried or smoked salmon, or salmon or trout preserved in tins or other containers, or salmon or trout prepared for consumption at a meal), unless he holds a licence granted under this Act to deal in salmon or trout at such place; and no person other than the holder of a licence to deal in salmon and trout so granted shall purchase salmon or trout except from a person so licensed;
  Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the sale or exposure or possession for sale by any person of salmon or trout lawfully taken by him or his servants to any person licensed under this Act to deal in salmon and trout.
  (5) The holder of a licence to deal in salmon and trout shall not knowingly buy or otherwise acquire salmon or trout from any person who has unlawfully taken such salmon or trout, or who has not a legal right to the possession of such salmon or trout.
  (6) Any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any of the foregoing provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
  (7) If any person licensed under this Act to deal in salmon and trout shall during the period of such licence be convicted of any offence against this Act the court may order that such licence shall be revoked, and that such person shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining any such licence for such period not exceeding five years as the court may think fit.—[Mr. J. Stuart.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Stuart: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Clause deals with licences to deal in salmon and trout. I do not want to repeat myself, because this matter was referred to during the Second Reading debate, when it was pointed out that the Maconochie Committee

  333
  paid great attention to it in paragraphs 35 and 70 of their Report. The Clause, which is rather long, explains our suggestions clearly. It is a version of a Clause to deal with precisely the same point in the 1938 Bill, which never reached the Statute Book. I hope that the Government will agree to accept the Clause, because the Secretary of State himself admitted on Second Reading that he was attracted by this suggestion. At that time he ruled it out on grounds of administrative difficulty, but in reply to that I mention that I am informed on very good authority that a similar system is operated, perfectly effectively and without difficulty, so far as I am aware, in Northern Ireland.
  It would, therefore, seem that there is precedent for taking such action and that there is no particular or strong grounds for refusing to accept the recommendation of Sheriff Maconachie's Committee. If further precedents are wanted, it is in line with the system already operating in connection with the game laws. Dealers in game are licensed, and the Clause proposes that dealers in salmon should be licensed in precisely the same way.
  The fact that as soon as the illegally-caught salmon or sea trout—that is, poached salmon—reaches the hands of the retailer it is impossible for the fish to be traced, seems to us to be a serious weakness in the Bill. Our object is to make the Bill an effective Measure, and the Clause, to which I and my hon. Friends attach considerable importance, would make it more effective. I could continue speaking, but will not do so because I do not wish to repeat the case. I know that it is perfectly clear to the Government, who studied the Maconachie Report, and I hope that they will agree to accept, if not this Clause, then a Clause on similar lines.
  The Lord Advocate: The Clause seeks only to institute a system of licensing. It does not seek to institute a system of keeping records. For the reasons which we discussed fully during Second Reading, it was deemed undesirable to introduce a system of keeping records, because the obligation of doing so would require to extend to many quarters in order to be effective. We felt that the administrative difficulties and the burden imposed upon hotel-keepers, restaurateurs, owners
  334
  of catering establishments, and the like, would be out of all proportion to any benefit that might accrue from the proposal as a result of getting evidence against those who were indulging in black market activities in this particular sphere. For that reason we rejected the suggestion of the keeping of records, which, to be effective—
  Mr. Gage: On a point of order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now talking about the keeping of records, which is dealt with in a later Clause—(register of purchase, sale, etc.)—which I hope to move. The present Clause does not deal with that, and I ask for your Ruling, Sir Charles. Are we to discuss the present Clause and the later Clause together, or are we to discuss only this Clause?
  10.15 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate: I should explain, that having given what I regarded as the general objection to keeping of records, I was going on to say that the licensing itself without the keeping of records would be an ineffective method of dealing with the problem.
  Mr. Gage: Would it be convenient to discuss the two Clauses together?
  Mr. Stuart: I think it might complicate the issue if we did that. I do not wish to put a stumbling block in the way of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), but we would rather keep the two apart.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think the Clauses had better be discussed separately.
  The Lord Advocate: We feel that the introduction of a licensing system itself would not be effective. In the first place, as the Clause stands the provision would only apply to Scotland. So far as our information goes a great deal of the fish which is caught in Scotland, particularly on a large scale, finds its way South of the Border and, accordingly, this isolated licensing system in Scotland would not have the result of stopping the trade from that point of view.
  Moreover, the mere fact that the person could only sell or deal in salmon if he were a licence holder would not in our view stop black market transactions because, if a person were found with

  335
  salmon in his possession and asked by the authorities where he got the salmon, under our law in Scotland he would be entitled to say to the investigator, "Mind your own business." Therefore, we would not be any further forward.
  The third difficulty is that it would not take us anywhere towards getting a conviction in the case where a person said, "I bought it from a licensed dealer" and when it was followed up the licensed dealer said, "I got it from John Smith." According to the proposed Clause we would say, "Yes, but John Smith has not a legal right to the possession of such salmon or trout." As I explained earlier, when the fish is in the river it does not belong to anybody and, accordingly, the person who has taken it out is in possession of fish which does not belong to anybody. Although he has taken it out illegally in the sense that he had no permission to take it out, that does not attract what we call in Scotland a vitium reale which is normally attracted to cases of stolen property. That being our common law, it would not be applicable to the salmon poached out of a river.
  These are some of the technical difficulties which would render this ineffective as a method of stopping black marketeering. We are satisfied that the best way of doing it is to pursue the effective remedies we are taking elsewhere in the Bill against the actual perpetrators of poaching. We feel that the best method of doing it. In the first case one very elaborate system is over-weighted and burdensome on a lot of people who would not be involved at all and the system of licensing and only of licensing would not be effective. For these reasons, we cannot accept the proposed Clause.
  Captain Duncan: I was disappointed with the reply of the Lord Advocate. It was certainly a brilliant legal point but it does not meet the point raised by my right hon. Friend. This arises on a recommendation of the Maconochie Committee. I would remind the Lord Advocate that Mr. Maconochie was a sheriff and a K.C. and he must have known something about the law when he made this recommendation in his report. He said:
  "We recommend the introduction of licences to deal in salmon and trout as we regard this to be essential"—
  336
  and that is the word I wish to stress—
  "if the trade in poached fish is to be kept in check."
  This Committee composed of legal gentlemen and other experts, regarded this idea of licensing as essential and it seems to me that we must have a much stronger argument to oppose such a strong recommendation than the argument used by the Lord Advocate.
  The Lord Advocate: But does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the recommendation in favour of licensing was linked up with the recommendation in favour of keeping records; and as I submitted, the one is really ineffective without the other, and the other, for reasons I have explained was not desirable?
  Captain Duncan: If I were allowed to discuss the question of records—I cannot do that now but I may be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage)—I would be in favour of records because I think, as the Maconochie Committee said, the two go together, and both are desirable.
  I recognise there is one difficulty about our Clause and that is that it is no use licensing dealers in Scotland if the salmon are going to be sent to England. Therefore there may be some ground for refusing our new Clause for that reason alone. But that should not let the Government off introducing certain legislation to cover both England and Scotland. I would make this offer to the Lord Advocate. If he will give Government facilities to one of us on this side of the Committee we will introduce a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule to amend the 1831 Act—I think it is—dealing with the licensing of game dealers; so that a person who is licensed as a game dealer can also be licensed to deal in salmon. If that could be put through by mutual agreement then the essential point will be covered. Otherwise we must disagree with the Government for taking the line they have over this new Clause.
  Brigadier Thorp: Although I support the new Clause strongly I see the one great difficulty which the Lord Advocate has pointed out, that the Clause cannot apply to England at all. Therefore, we should have a position on the River Tweed where we would have one side

  337
  of the river different from the other. The right hon. Gentleman said we could not have one part of the river different from another, but if we pass this Clause we would have that, because although the Act itself deals with the district of the River Tweed, the district, as I am sure the Lord Advocate will agree, relates to the tributaries and burns of the river and their banks. It does not go further than that.
  We could not make a law applying to a village that was, say, 10 miles from the Tweed. Although it might be between two tributaries of the river, Scottish law could not be made to cover this point. I feel that is one difficulty which the Government have before them, but, at the same time, I support the Clause. The Government must put their minds to it and see if they can arrive at a method of getting over this difficulty.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division—
  The Deputy-Chairman: Owing to a mistake, we must have this Division again. The Question is, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  Sir I. Fraser: On a point of order. Can you explain what the mistake is, Sir Charles?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I am not quite sure. I think some hon. Members got through without being counted, because the Tellers left the doors too early.
  Sir I. Fraser: On a further point of order—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must be seated in raising a point of order during a Division.
  Sir I. Fraser: I beg to point out that no Division is proceeding, and therefore I may stand up to address you.
  The Deputy-Chairman: A Division is proceeding.
  Sir I. Fraser: I beg leave to ask you whether, in view of the fact that the Division was out of order and there is now no Division proceeding. I may address you standing up?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The Division has been called again. We are now in the middle of the Division for the second time.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 140.

  Division No. 34.

  AYES

  [10.37 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Gage, C. H.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Mellor, Sir J.

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

  Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Txteth)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Heald, L. F.

  Nabarro, G.

  Black, C. W.

  Heath, E. R.

  Nicholls, H.

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

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Pickthorn, K.

  Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

  Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

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

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

  Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Redmayne, M.

  Channon, H.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

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

  Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Roper, Sir H.

  Colegate, A.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B.

  Ropner, Col. L

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Russell, R. S.

  Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)

  Joynson-Hicke, Hon. L. W.

  Scott, Donald

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E

  Keeling, E. H.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Crouch, R. F.

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)

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

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

  Spans, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon R. (N Fylde)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M

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

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Drewe, C.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Duncan, Capt J. A. L.

  McAdden, S. J.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Dunglass, Lora

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Studholme, H. G

  Duthie, W. S.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Fisher, Nigel

  McKibbin, A

  Teevan, L. T.

  Fort, R.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Foster, J. G.

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Thompson, K P (Walton)

  Tilney, John

  Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylabone)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Touche, G. C

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  York, C

  Turton, R. H.

  Walkinson, H.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Williams, C. (Trquay)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Vosper, D. F

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Major Wheatley and Mr. Digby.

  NOES

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Hargreaves, A.

  Orbach, M.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Padley, W. E.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pearson, A.

  Bacon, Miss. A

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Poole, Cecil

  Bartley, P.

  Holman, P.

  Porter, G.

  Benn, Hon. A N Wedgwood

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Bing, G. H. C

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pryde, D. J.

  Boardman, H.

  Hoy, J.

  Rankin, J.

  Bowden, H. W

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

  Rees, Mrs. D.

  Bowen, R.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Richards, R.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Brookway, A. Fenner

  Janner, B.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Broughton, Dr A. D. D

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Burton, Miss E.

  Keenan, W.

  Royle, C.

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

  Kinley, J.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Carmichael, James

  Lee, F. (Newton)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Champion, A. J.

  Lever, L. M (Ardwick)

  Simmons, C- J

  Coldrick, W.

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

  Slater, J

  Collick, P.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Snow, J. W.

  Collindridge, F.

  Logan, D. G.

  Sorensen, R. W

  Cook, T. F.

  Longden, F. (Small Heath)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir

  Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  McAllister, G.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Cove, W. G.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Steele, T.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.J

  Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  McInnes, J.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  McLeavy, F.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Deer, G

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

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

  Delargy, H. J

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Donnelly, D.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Timmons, J.

  Dye, S.

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

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Wade. D. W.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Wallace, H. W

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Weitzman, D.

  Finch, H. J

  Mellish, R. J.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

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

  Messer, F.

  West, D. G

  Forman, J. C.

  Middleton, Mrs. L

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

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  Moeran, E. W.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Moody, A. S.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Gilzean, A.

  Morley, R.

  Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Yates, V. F

  Greenwood, A. W J (Rossandale)

  Mort, D. L.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Moyle, A

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Grimond, J.

  Nally, W.

  Mr. Hannan and Mr. Popplewell.

  Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

  Meal, H.

  Sir I. Fraser: On a point of order, Sir Charles, I should like to point out that you—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Stuart: Without wishing to criticise your Ruling, Sir Charles, we on this side of the Committee would be grateful if you would inform us of your reason for stating that the first Division was inoperative; because it would be of interest to hon. Members to know the grounds on which this Division was called off and why it had to be taken again. So far as we were concerned on this side, the Division was perfectly properly conducted.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The reason is that the Tellers left the "No" Lobby before all hon. Members were through,
  340
  and there is precedent for proceeding again to a Division.
  Mr. Stuart: With respect, Sir Charles, I do not think the Tellers had left the Lobby. I have had some experience of telling, and believed the Lobby to be clear, and they then left the doors and came to the Table.
  Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that there is a Teller for each party in each Lobby?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I would tell hon. Members that I understand that there are numerous precedents for having a Division over again in this way.
  Sir W. Darling: May I ask why is my first vote null and void, and secondly,

  341
  what would have happened if I had voted in a different Lobby the second time?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The answer, quite briefly, is that the hon. Member's first vote is null and void and his second question is quite hypothetical.
  Sir I. Fraser: Can you say, Sir Charles, what was the result of the void Division? Was it a Government defeat?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot answer; the figures were not given me.

  New Clause.—(EXTENT OF APPLICATION.)
  This Bill shall apply to the whole territory of the Royal Burgh of Annan.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The point of this Clause is simply to define the position of the Royal Burgh of Annan under this Bill. The territory of the Royal Burgh was fixed by charter without reference to the channel of the River Esk, and the result of this has been that as that channel changes and as it is reputed to be the boundary between England and Scotland, it sometimes happens that the Royal Burgh of Annan is in England, and sometimes in Scotland. The point of this Clause, therefore, is to make certain that, wherever the channel of the Esk may lie, the whole of the territory of Annan is covered by one law.
  Mr. T. Fraser: This Clause raises exactly the same point as that raised by an earlier Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Macpherson: Not quite.
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman says "not quite." There is not the same point inasmuch as he is not here seeking to define the river as he was before, but he seeks to provide that in certain circumstances a part of the River Esk shall be in Scotland and that offences committed under this Bill in that part of the Esk would be liable to prosecution. I must not repeat the argument I made on the earlier Amendment, but it is our desire to provide that a prosecution in any part of the Esk, whether within the Royal Burgh of Annan or elsewhere, should be under the 1923 Act as applied to England and Wales and not under this Measure.
  342
  I ask the hon. Member not to press this new Clause.
  Mr. Macpherson: I am sorry that I have not made the position easily understandable, but this is not quite the same point. In this case it is the channel, as I said very carefully; and it is very doubtful whether the channel of the Esk is the Esk. It may well be the Solway. That is the point I asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State to clear up on the earlier Amendment. Whether or not the earlier Amendment cleared it up, it still remains the case that the channel of the Esk moves and in some cases part of Annan may be, and from time to time is, in England. I ask that the whole of the territory of Annan should be regulated by one law. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, it is being regulated under the provision under which the Esk is undoubtedly covered by the law of England, that will make it certain that the territory of Annan comes under two laws, because it is only at low tide that the channel of the Esk becomes the Esk; otherwise, it is definitely the Solway. I do not think the hon. Gentleman can give a snap answer now, but I ask him to look at the matter later.
  Mr. C. Williams: It seems to me that my hon. Friend has made it quite clear, and has an absolute case, that the whole of this should come under England. That is excellent and most of us take that point of view, so why not accept a compromise and let the whole thing come under the law of England? I have no doubt that if that were the position, my hon. Friend would be only too pleased. Every Scotsman, I think, would agree to that.
  Mr. Fraser: The whole of the River Esk is covered by the English Act of 1923, which I read out earlier. Section 83 of that Act states:
  "This Act shall apply to so much of the River Esk, with its banks and tributary streams up to their source, as is situated in Scotland…"
  The 1923 Act applies to the whole of the River Esk including the channel. If we seek to bring any part of the River Esk into the Scottish Bill. we shall have to amend the Act of 1923, and we think it would be quite wrong to divide the River Esk in that way.
  Mr. Macpherson: If that is so, at low tide there is one law and at high tide there is another, and I really think the hon. Gentleman must look into this matter again.
  Question put, and negatived.

  New Clause.—(APPOINTMENT OF WATER BAILIFFS).
  No district board shall appoint any person to be a water bailiff unless the name of such person has been submitted to and approved by the county council or county councils of the district in which he is to work and the appointment of such person as water bailiff shall be immediately terminated if the said county councils, or any one of them, finds that such person is not a suitable person to be a water bailiff.—[Mr. Macdonald.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Macdonald: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The regretful fact has to be faced that in the public eye the prestige of many of the Tweed bailiffs leaves a great deal to be desired.
  Lord Dunglass: Oh, no.
  Mr. Macdonald: They are employed by the Tweed Commissioners, and consequently the type of man available for what is generally only a seasonal job is, on the whole, rather poor. It has been felt by many anglers in my constituency, and probably in other parts of Scotland, that the first step in the rehabilitation of water bailiffs would be the improved status of being approved by the appropriate county councils as a guardian of the stream instead of as a member of a private body. Public opinion regarding the appointment of the bailiffs is ripe for a change. Government by consent in fishing as elsewhere is only acceptable if both the law and its officials are regarded as fair and reasonable.
  The Lord Advocate may argue that a body that does not pay the bailiffs should not appoint them, but I believe that the county council could make a token payment to these men, and the bulk of their wages will still be paid by the river board. The appointees will therefore be likely, as a result, to have the interest of the angler at heart instead of primarily that of the riparian owners as at present. There are seven county councils who would need to be consulted in this matter, and in my belief there is no reason why
  344
  a small committee cannot be appointed from those county councils to appoint these bailiffs and thereby raise considerably their status and the respect of the general public for them. I hope that the Lord Advocate will agree to incorporate this proposed new Clause in the Bill.
  Lord Dunglass: I hope that the Lord Advocate will resist this new Clause. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Macdonald) made an assertion which cannot possibly be borne out by anybody who has had experience of the river when he said that water bailiffs are looked upon by the inhabitants of the area bordering the Tweed with suspicion, and far more than that. I thought he might raise this, and I have brought several columns of the Press which express appreciation of the way the cases are handled. In prosecutions we have had something under 2 per cent. failures, and about half those who are brought to our superintendent are let off and not prosecuted for a first offence, which seems to show that the water bailiff and the superintendent operating on the Tweed are very sympathetic.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that this is only a seasonal business. But the Tweed is open for ten months of the year, and I suggest that he remember that. To have to consult seven county councils every time a water bailiff is appointed would be most unnecessary and cumbersome, and I hope the Lord Advocate will resist this new Clause.
  The Lord Advocate: I rather hesitate to intervene in this internal warfare between hon. Members opposite, but without going into the merits or demerits or the virtues or vices of water bailiffs, let me give the technical reason why this proposal is quite impracticable. The employment of water bailiffs is authorised by Statute, generally by the 1862 Act and in respect of the River Tweed by the 1857 Act, and the district boards are charged under the Statutes with the protection and maintenance of the salmon. Accordingly, the suitability of persons whom they take into their employ to enable them to discharge their several duties is a matter for them and for no one else.
  The local authorities, the county councils, do not come into the picture at all, and it would be a very difficult principle to accept that a person employing

  345
  somebody, whether as a water bailiff or otherwise, should require to get the consent and approval of an outside body who had no concern in the matter. I think one needs only to enunciate that principle to see how unacceptable this new Clause is. For those reasons, I am afraid we cannot accept the Clause.
  Mr. Macdonald: In view of the Lord Advocate's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, with-drawn.

  New Clause.—(REGISTER OF PERSONS HAVING LEGAL RIGHTS TO FISH OR TAKE SALMON.)
  (1) The Secretary of State shall make up a register of persons having legal right to fish for or take salmon, and of the waters, including any part of the sea within one mile of low water mark, in which said persons are entitled to exercise their said rights.
  (2) The Secretary of State shall include in said register the name of any person who can satisfy him within twelve months of the passing of this Act, that he has a valid heritable title to salmon fishings. Thereafter, or where the Secretary of State considers there are competing claims or a doubtful title the Secretary of State may include in said register only the names of persons who either are found by the Court of Session to be entitled to the salmon fishings in respect of which they desire to be registered or are the successors of persons already included in said register.
  (3) A copy of said register shall be kept available for public inspection in the office of every sheriff clerk and sheriff clerk depute.
  (4) For the purpose of this section the Secretary of State may grant written permission to any person or association of persons to fish for or take salmon in any waters in respect of which no name is included in said register. The Secretary of State may grant said permission either gratuitously or on payment of a fee. Permission granted under this subsection shall be effective only for the purposes of this section and shall not prejudice the civil remedies of any proprietor of salmon fishings.
  (5) For the purpose of section one of this Act inclusion in the said register shall be sufficient evidence of legal right to fish for or take salmon.—[Mr. Macdonald.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Macdonald: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  It is nearly 100 years since a reasonably effective Salmon Bill was brought before the House and we of the Liberal Party welcomed very warmly the
  346
  announcement that this Bill was to come before us. We have, however, been disappointed by the narrow limitations of much of this Bill. We realise that it may prove an effective check to gang poaching which we all wish to see abolished, but we do feel that it may add far greater restrictions to the ordinary angler, the man who, we believe, should have as full scope as possible. We consider, as has been stated on the benches opposite, that this is mainly a landlords' Bill and we see no reason why any of the landlords should be strengthened.
  Our rivers are the property of the people; the fish within those rivers are the property of the people, and very few landlords, if any, are responsible for the stocking of their streams. As the Lord Advocate probably knows, a Royal Commission was set up in 1895 under a Liberal Government. It sat in 1895 and finished its report in 1896 when, unfortunately, the Government had changed to a Conservative Government. Its terms of reference were:
  "To inquire into the salmon and fresh-water fisheries of the River Tweed, its estuaries and its tributaries; the method of fishing therein; the rights affecting such fisheries and the laws applying thereto and the operation of such laws."
  The findings of the Royal Commission were presented to this Conservative Government in 1896 and that Government remained in power for a number of years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] The Commission recommended that an examination should be made into titles of those claiming to have salmon fisheries in the river. The Report stated that on the upper part of the Tweed and its tributaries there was a considerable extent of "unchartered" waters in which the rights of salmon fishing had never been granted by the Crown to a subject, and in these circumstances those fisheries were still held by the Crown.
  The Report also stated that it appeared to be highly desirable that the matter be cleared up. The findings of that Commission were presented to that Conservative Government and they did nothing about them at all. A Liberal Member, Sir H. Maxwell, in 1898, two years after the Report was published, asked the then Lord Advocate, Mr. Graham Murray, why the findings of the Commission had not been implemented and he received the usual evasive reply, that the recommenda-

  347
  tions had not been lost sight of, but that the Scottish Office and Board of Trade were not then prepared to promise a Bill for eradicating the difficulties which had been pointed out.
  In view of this Conservative resistance, a Liberal Member, Sir John Jardine, in 1908 and 1909—
  11.0 p.m.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going rather beyond his new Clause, which deals with a specific point.
  Mr. Macdonald: I am trying to give the basis of my case. This Member presented two Private Bills on this matter, but they both got no further than First Reading because of Prorogation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Was there not a Liberal Government at that time."] Yes, but it was very busy, in spite of the efforts of the Conservatives, trying to bring about social legislation, but it was hampered by the opposition of persons in another place. The Labour Party, in their social reform Measures, have since reaped the benefits of the actions of the Liberal Government in 1911.
  There are persons on the upper reaches of the Tweed estuaries at present, and probably on other rivers in Scotland, who are usurping the nation's property because they have no legal right from the Crown to the fishing rights of the river. They are leasing those rights for very considerable sums, yet Clause 1 uses the words:
  "If any person without legal right or without written permission from a person having such right, fishes…"
  I am trying to prove that many of the persons who assume they have legal rights have no such rights at all; therefore, many persons could be prosecuted when they have no reason to be prosecuted at all because they are not trespassing on anyone's fishing.
  It may be of interest to the Committee to recall just how unsatisfactory is the question of salmon fishing rights in Scotland today. It makes Clause 1 such a farce in its present form. If we turn to Erskine's Institute of the Law of Scotland—
  Mr. Stuart: On a point of order. Is it not the case that we have already dealt with Clause 1 of the Bill?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the new Clause and I hope that he will keep to the point.
  Mr. Macdonald: I am sorry, but I did not hear your Ruling, Sir Charles.
  The Deputy-Chairman: This is quite a narrow point, involving the question of setting up a register, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will keep to it.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it not necessary, before we can understand what this register may imply, for the hon. Gentleman to elaborate his argument?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I quite understand the point.
  Mr. Macdonald: I cannot find any better case on which to base my argument than the law of Scotland, and Erskine's Institute states:
  "The doctrine of occupancy is agreeable to the Law of Scotland, in such moveable subjects—as have continued in their original state, and are presumed never to have had an owner —whether animate or inanimate. Thus, pearls enclosed in shells, or pebbles cast on the shore, belong to the finder. Thus also we acquire the property of all wild beasts, fowls or fishes as soon as we kill or apprehend them,…"
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must listen to my Rulings. Otherwise, he must resume his seat.
  Mr. Macdonald: If I may refer to just one other thing, Sir Charles, I will bring my speech to a hasty conclusion. The Institute also says:
  "Salmon fishing is…a jus regale and therefore is not carried by a feudal charter without an express clause. As this right, in consequence of its being inter regalia, remains with the sovereign after he is divested of the property of the lands on both sides of the river, the crown may make a grant of the salmon fishing in a river or any part thereof in favour of one who has no lands on either side. The whole estate of such grantee consists in the fishing; and this right entitles him to draw his nets on the banks of the adjacent grounds without the proprietor's consent, as a pertinent of the fishing."
  Surely it is a fact—I have others that I could bring to the Committee's attention, but they are outside the scope of this Clause—that if we are to see justice does not miscarry in the case of the ordinary angler in Scotland, that the register I have asked for under this Clause should be accepted by the Government and

  349
  brought into force immediately. The hon. Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) earlier in today's debate—I hope I am quoting him correctly—said that it might be a good idea to have a register of riparian owners. The riparian owners, I understand, are those who have a Royal charter to the fishing rights. Thus, in many respects, the noble Lord was in line with much that I have said.
  Lord Dunglass: The hon. Member has put so many words into so many mouths —he must not go on doing this. All I asked was that the Secretary of State might consider nominating riparian owners for a certain purpose. There was no question of a register.
  Mr. Macdonald: I apologise to the noble Lord if I misunderstood him. I took quite a different view of what he said. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side have expressed in the Clauses put forward by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) a similar idea to ours—that something should be done to check up this register of the charters of Scotland. My reason for bringing forward this Clause is the furtherance of an ideal—an ideal that practically all sections of Scottish rivers should, in time, be controlled by their appropriate angling associations for the benefit of the ordinary angler. A register of fishing charters would form the first and very valuable step in this direction.
  We have no desire to confiscate the legal fishing rights of anyone, but it is our wish to cancel the bogus rights of some persons in the interests of the general public. I wish to see that the sport of salmon fishing is available to the sporting fraternity of all classes and not simply available to a privileged few, some of whom have no legal right to the fish in the stretch of river they own. I commend the Clause to the Government and the Committee.
  The Lord Advocate: I intervene at this stage in the hope that I can convince the Committee that we should deal with this very shortly and try to get through the other new Clauses and Amendments on the Order Paper tonight. We must remember that the salmon season has opened, and that we want the Bill to become effective as soon as possible. These continued delays are defeating part of the purpose of the Bill. I make that
  350
  appeal to the Committee. In so far as this may give an opportunity of making propaganda speeches on the issue, we have already had that opportunity during the discussion on the new Clause introduced by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), whose brevity in moving it I would commend to the Committee.
  Our principal objection to this Clause is not on the question of merit—I do not wish to involve myself in that tonight —but simply that this is not an appropriate Clause to add to a Bill of this nature. It gives rise to a great deal of consideration and might affect the right of property—perhaps correctly, I am not expressing any opinion about that tonight —but it is a very fundamental change which would be introduced into the law. It might have a desirable effect, but to introduce it by way of a new Clause to a Bill which is designed for the entirely different purpose of bringing into one composite whole the criminal offences in respect of salmon poaching in Scotland is, I think, rather unfortunate.
  Should it be desired that this greater question should be canvassed, it is, in my submission, such a fundamental question that it should form the subject matter of another Bill. For that it might be necessary to have full inquiries. It is no use the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Macdonald) referring to a Royal Commission in 1895. We might want to have a much fuller inquiry with a view to getting perhaps a different remedy from that recommended by the Royal Commission in 1895.
  Mr. Macdonald: The investigation will be done by the riparian owners themselves registering and will be done within a year, as is suggested in the Clause.
  The Lord Advocate: My principal objection is that it would be inappropriate to introduce such a fundamental change by way of the side wind of a new Clause. That is without prejudice to the opinions which anyone may have as to the merits of the proposal. In any event, for technical reasons the Clause as framed is not acceptable. One reason is that at present it is an offence to fish for salmon without legal authority; and the only new introduction we have in the Bill is that permission must now be in writing. At present people still have

  351
  to have permission to fish for salmon; otherwise they are committing an offence according to the laws of Scotland; therefore, the question of ownership is in no way affected as between the new Bill and the old law.
  I do not think that my right hon. Friend or any other Secretary of State, would wish to set himself up as a judge of the legal titles of the various aspirants to these claims. It is not the function of the Secretary of State to adjudicate on legal titles, to construe legal deeds and determine legal ownership. That is the function of the courts, and it may be the function of the courts to decide that, if such a decision were necessary. These are merely technical objections, but my principal objection, which, I hope, the Committee will accept, is, irrespective of the merits, that this is not appropriate to this Bill.
  Mr. Boothby: I agree with the Lord Advocate. I do not think this is the occasion to introduce a Clause to nationalise the rivers of Scotland. I wonder if the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Macdonald) has given serious consideration to the case of the River Thursoe, or if he has consulted in any way the riparian owners; because I do not think he should have said one quarter of the things he has said without at least taking counsel with the man I still regard as the intrinsic and even the titular leader of the Liberal Party.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have not yet said one word on the Committee stage of this Bill, and nobody who knows anything of the contributions I make in this House will accuse me of wishing to indulge in propaganda speeches. I heard the speech of the Lord Advocate with both sorrow and in anger, because if he is correct this Labour Government will be as dilatory and as reactionary, and will do as little, as the Conservative Government of 60 years ago—the time of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Macdonald) spoke.
  I regret that the Lord Advocate of a Socialist Government did not immediately accept this Clause. I am all in favour of this register. I believe that my constituents, although they may not be enthusiastic about other provisions in
  352
  the Bill, are unanimously behind me in supporting this new register. When the Lord Advocate rose, I thought he would argue that such a register could not be compiled because of a practical difficulty, but I submit that there is in existence already a document which would help considerably in the drawing up of this register.
  There need be no delay at all, as the Lord Advocate thought; not 24 hours need go by before finding a large proportion of this new register to put in the hands of the printers. In fact, I have here the first instalment of this register, which will keep the printers employed until the salmon fishing begins, and I am prepared to hand it to the Lord Advocate. It is a far more impressive document than the one my hon. Friend from the Liberal Party recommended to the Committee.
  This document was compiled by the most eminent historian we have in Scotland at the moment, a man who sat in this House for a generation and whose utterances were listened to with great respect, who became the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is a document which would assist the Lord Advocate in getting this register compiled immediately, and I fail to see completely why he should introduce this opportunist argument about time when there is this important document, which can be as interesting to the population of Scotland as the Magna Carta.
  The new important Clause says:
  "The Secretary of State shall include in said register the name of any person who can satisfy him within twelve months of the passing of this Act, that he has a valid heritable title to salmon fishings."
  I have no doubt that my hon. Friend would be prepared to alter the wording of the Clause, to allow, if necessary, the major part of the Bill to proceed and to introduce a further Clause which can come into operation in 12 months' time, or in two years' time. I for one would be prepared to see the major part of the Bill go on the Statute Book and, if the Lord Advocate is prepared to assure that Committee that within a reasonable time we should have a new Bill in which the main principles of my hon. Friend's Amendment are incorporated, I believe my hon. Friend would be prepared to consider withdrawing his Clause. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member says we

  353
  shall be out, I am quite prepared to fight the next election on whether or not this Clause should be inserted in the Bill, and whether such a register should be compiled. More than that, I am willing to go into the constituency of the Lord Advocate and to say—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to deal with the Clause. I do hope he will do so.
  Mr. Hughes: I am merely stating, I hope briefly, what influences my mind in rejecting the appeal of the Lord Advocate that we should rush through this Bill.
  The Lord Advocate is putting up what I call a frivolous objection, and I do not believe that his arguments—although he is the most influential servant of the Crown in Scotland—should be allowed to influence the decision of this Committee. As it is only seven minutes to the time when we have to adjourn this discussion, this Clause should be discussed at a later date. There are very elaborate arguments, and a very large amount of evidence, that have yet to be placed before the Committee. Not only have I a large amount of evidence, but my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) have also. We have to deal not only with our parts of Ayrshire, but also with your parts of Scotland as well, Sir Charles.
  I fail to see why my argument should be interrupted by the irrelevant remark that the Bill needs to be finished tonight. It is not necessary to rush the Bill and steam-roller the Liberal Party at a time when this is the last hope of the resurrection of that party.
  The Deputy-Chairman: There is nothing about the Liberal Party in this Clause. The Question is, "That the Clause be read a Second time." Those of that opinion say "Aye"; to the contrary "No."
  Mr. Hughes: I have not come to the end of my argument yet.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I have put the Question and collected the voices.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Hughes: We are entitled to have this Clause discussed on its merits, and I submit that we are going to have it discussed.
  Mr. Granville: On a point of order. It was absolutely impossible on these benches to hear you put the Question, Sir Charles.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. All this time I have been devoting my remarks to the Lord Advocate's speech. I have taken up much time which, otherwise, I would have devoted to discussion on the Bill, but everything that I have said is relevant to the discussion on this Clause. I am entitled to say why I support this Clause. The main reason why I support this—
  Mr. Boothby: I understood, Sir Charles, that you had put the Question.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) sat down, and I put the Question, but if I put it before everyone was satisfied, then the discussion must go on.
  Mr. Hughes: I should be very loth indeed, Sir Charles, to ignore your Ruling, and very loth to be suspended from the service of this honourable House, but if one is not to be allowed to state one's case then that action would be necessary. We are not going to be bullied by the Lord Advocate—an influential man—because this happens to be something moved by an insignificant party. What has that got to do with it? Despite the attempt to steam-roller this new Clause, I am fully entitled to put my argument. If the Lord Advocate desires to get the Bill through then all he has to do is to accept the new Clause.
  The Lord Advocate rose—
  Mr. Hughes: The Lord Advocate may be an authority on national affairs, but he does not understand our point of view.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That remark is quite irrelevant to this new Clause.
  Mr. McNeil: My hon. Friend has delivered his speech with great good humour so far and I can understand a joke, but I am sure he will agree that what he just said sounded very much like a threat.
  Mr. Hughes: I apologise to the Secretary of State, and to his susceptibilities,

  355
  but I assure you, Sir Charles, that my susceptibilities are not ruffled.
  I submit that we are entitled to proper consideration, and I am not pleading solely for myself; I am pleading for other hon. Members of the Committee who have made it clear that they wish to adduce arguments as to why the new Clause should be added to the Bill. After all, minorities have the right to be heard, and we do not intend to be put aside by the Secretary of State, or the Lord Advocate, or by both combined. This compilation should be made because, for the first time in our history, we should have this register which would show to every angling club in Scotland exactly who are the proprietors of the land over which—
  Mr. Bowen rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Turton(seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Charles. You called for the doors to be locked, but the door of the Aye Lobby remained open for some three minutes
  afterwards and one hon. Member got through the Lobby after the order had been given. I gather that it was the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) who went through the Lobby after the order for the doors to be locked had been given and when the door of the Aye Lobby had been inadvertently left open.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I regret that an error was made by one of the messengers. The Division is not void on that account.
  Mr. Molson(seated and covered): Further to that point of order. Does your statement that an error was made by one of the messengers invalidate this Division or does it not, Sir Charles?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I am told that it does not in these circumstances.
  Mr. Rankin(seated and covered): Further to the point of order, Sir Charles. What position would be created if the Division now under dispute turned out to be a vital one and perhaps resulted in a majority of hon. Members voting that the Question be now put?
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is a hypothetical question, and I cannot answer it.
  Ayes, 163; Noes, 24.

  Division No. 35.]

  AYES

  [11.35 p.m.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Donnelly, D.

  Higgs, J. M. C

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Drewe, C.

  Holman, P.

  Hartley, P.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A L

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Benn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood

  Dunglass, Lord

  Houghton, Douglas

  Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Dye, S.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Boardman, H.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

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

  Fernynough, E.

  Janner, B.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Finch, H. J.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

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

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Forman, J. C.

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Fort, R.

  Kinley, J.

  Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Lee, F. (Newton)

  Burton, Miss E.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

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

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

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

  Champion, A. J.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Lindgren, G. S.

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

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

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

  Gibson, C. W.

  Logan, D. G.

  Collindridge, F.

  Gilzean, A.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Gianville, J. E. (Consett)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Cook, T. F.

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Cove, W. G.

  Grimond, J.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

  McKibbin, A.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hannan, W.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

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

  Hargreaves, A.

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hayman, F. H.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Deer, G.

  Heath, E. R.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W W

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

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Proctor, W. T.

  Taylor, R. d. (Morpeth)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Redmayne, M

  Teevan, L. T.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Rees, Mrs. D.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Messer, F.

  Richards, R.

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

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Moeran, E. W.

  Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Wade, D. W.

  Moody, A S.

  Royle, C.

  Wallace, H. W

  Moore, LI.-Col. Sir T

  Russell, R. S.

  Weitzman, D.

  Morley, R.

  Scott, Donald

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  West, D. G.

  Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

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

  Nabarro, G.

  Simmons, C. J

  Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

  Nally, W.

  Slater, J

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Neal, H.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Nicholls, H.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Padley, W. E.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.

  Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

  Pearson, A.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

  Perkins, W. R. O

  Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.

  Yates, V F.

  Popplewell, E.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Porter, G.

  Studholme, H. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Sylvester, G. 0.

  Mr. A. J. F. Macdonald and

  Mr. Bowen.

  NOES

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Arbuthnot, John

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

  Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

  Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

  Keenan, W.

  Timmons, J.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Longden, F. (Small Heath)

  Turton, R. H.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M

  McInnes, J.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tyne vth)

  Crouch, R. F.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Poole, Cecil

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Fisher, Nigel

  Rankin, J

  Mr. Carmichael and

  Mr. Emrys Hughes.

  The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. I submit, Sir Charles, that there has occurred an incident unprecedented in the history of the House of Commons, and I wish to ask you for a Ruling and for guidance. When the Division was called, two Tellers on behalf of the Liberal Party changed their minds and did not wish the
  Division to proceed. I ask you, therefore, whether the Division is in order if those who had called for it did not wish to continue it.
  The Deputy-Chairman: They have been appointed as Tellers by the Committee and they must carry on with their duties.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 3; Noes, 203.

  Division No. 36.]

  AYES

  11.45 p.m.

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  Grimond, J

  Wade, D. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr A. J. F. Macdonald and

  Mr. Bowen.

  NOES

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Bacon, Miss A

  Burton, Miss E.

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N)

  Bartley, P.

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

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Benn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Deedes, W F.

  Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

  Champion, A. J.

  Deer, G.

  Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth

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

  Delargy, H. J.

  Bing, G. H. C

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

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Bishop, F. P.

  Colegate, A.

  Donnelly, D

  Black, C. W.

  Gollindridge, F.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M

  Boardman, H.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Drewe, C.

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

  Cook, T. F.

  Duncan, Capt. J A L

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)

  Dunglass, Lord

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Duthie W S.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Cove, W. G.

  Dye, S.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

  Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwiek)

  Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Finch, H. J.

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

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lindgren, G. S

  Roper, Sir H.

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

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Royle, C.

  Forman, J. C.

  Logan, D. G.

  Russell, R. S.

  Fort, R.

  Longden, F. (Small Heath)

  Scott, Donald

  Fraser, Sir I.(Morecambe & Lonsdale)

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

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Gage, G. H

  McCallum, Maj. D

  Slater, J.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  McInnes, J.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Gibson, C W.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.

  Gilzean, A.

  McKibbin, A.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Steele, T.

  Greenwood, Anthony W. J. (Rossendale)

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Hannan, W.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Hargreaves, A.

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

  Studholme, H. G.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Mellish, R. J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Teevan, L. T.

  Heald, L F.

  Messer, F.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Heath, E. R.

  Middle on, Mrs. L.

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

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Mitchison, G. R

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Moeran, E W.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Moody, A S.

  Turton, R. H.

  Holman, P.

  Moore, Lt.-Col Sir T.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)

  Morley, R.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Nabarro, G.

  Weitzman, D.

  Hoy, J.

  Nally, W.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N)

  Neal, H.

  West, D. G.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N)

  Nicholls, H.

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

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orbach, M.

  Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

  Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Padley, W. E

  Wilkins, W A.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W)

  Pearson, A.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Hylton-Foster, H. B.

  Perkins, W. R. D

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Janner, B.

  Porter, G

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Pryde, D. J

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Keenan, W.

  Rankin, J.

  Yates, V. F

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Redmayne, M.

  Kinley, J

  Rees, Mrs. D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lee, F. (Newton)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Bowden.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  It being after Half-past Eleven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS)
The Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I beg to move,
"That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Order, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th December, 1950, be approved."
There are eight of these draft Orders on the Order Paper. In moving the first relating to Leeds, I should explain that all these Orders put into effect without modification the recommendations made by the Boundary Commission for
360
England. Hon. Members will recall that the Commission's Report was laid before Parliament on 13th December last. All the Orders would come into force on 1st April, 1951, but in accordance with Section 3 (6) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, they will not affect any Parliamentary election until the next General Election.
The first Order, which relates to Leeds, brings the constituency boundaries into conformity with the ward boundaries. The ward boundaries have recently been revised by Order in Council. The next six Orders bring the constituency boundaries into conformity with the borough boundaries which have been extended by local Acts during 1950. The last Order relates to Lundy Island. Lundy was not mentioned in the Boundary Commission's initial Report, nor, consequently, in the

361
Schedule to the Representation of the People Act, 1948, and there is some doubt as to which constituency Lundy is in. This Order makes it plain that it is in the Torrington constituency.
Resolved:
That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Order, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th December, 1950, be approved.

Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Order, 1951 [copy presented, 13th December] approved.

Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 3) Order, 1951 [copy presented, 13th December] approved.

Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 4) Order, 1951 [copy presented, 13th December] approved.

Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 5) Order, 1951 [copy presented, 13th December] approved.

Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 6) Order, 1951 [copy presented, 13th December] approved.

Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 7) Order, 1951 [copy presented, 13th December] approved.

Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 8) Order, 1951 [copy presented, 13th December] approved.

[Mr. de Freitas.]

EMPLOYMENT (ELDERLYPERSONS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]
11.55 p.m.
Mr. Harmar Nicholls: In the subject of the Adjournment debate tonight, the importance of maintaining elderly people in productive employment, we have a national problem, which, for different reasons, is at one and the same time both a short-term and long-term policy of the gravest importance. With the need to provide extra young men for the fighting Services and to equip them, the maximum contribution from elderly men and women in agriculture and industry is as obvious as it is urgent.
This is a short-term need, and in the literal meaning of that phrase it really
362
is "short-term." We want all possible help now, without any delay. I am sure that the debate tomorrow will show that we are behind schedule in the building up of our defences, and that will add extra point to it. Behind this short-term point of view there is the wider and ever-growing problem wherein over the next 30 years we shall have the number of young workers for industry falling off; and the proportion of the elderly members of the community likely to rise to a point where there will be insufficient young and middle-aged for both managerial and manual appointments. As a consequence, we shall find it hard to maintain any worth-while national standard of life.
I have a feeling that neither the nation nor the Government have realised the implications of the problem and its extent. Otherwise, some active attention would have been given before now to all that is behind this problem and something would have been done to utilise the vast reservoir of skill and ability which is allowed each year to trickle down the hole marked "retired." I have heard my father say on many occasions that there are young men at all ages, and there is too much truth in that for any encouragement to be given to the present tendency arbitrarily to draw a line of retirement at 60 or 65 years of age.
In any national stocktaking today the outstanding item calling for attention is the shortage of labour, particularly skilled labour. In my constituency the outstanding vacancies noted at the employment exchange last week totalled more than 1,350; and by August of this year, when a new department of one of our industries comes into full force, this figure will be substantially increased. This experience of Peterborough is an example of what is happening in many other towns and cities throughout the country. If we are to meet this problem we must have, throughout the country, about three-quarters of a million extra people at work and all this despite the fact that we have actually 1¾ million more employed now than before the war.
There are three questions which pose themselves before us tonight. First: Why are we short of this manpower, despite the extra 1¾ million employed? Second: Is this shortage likely to con-

363
tinue? Third: and perhaps the most import: How can this shortage be met? I think the reasons for the present shortage are quite clear. We have had to make up for the general maintenance and re-equipment that went by default during the war, to make up for the fact that during six years we did not have any houses built, to make up for the shortage of consumer choice.
We have to face up to the fact that as a consequence of the extra staffs needed in Government and local government services to help administer the Welfare State, more people have been required. All this calls for increased manpower totalling at least 2,250,000 to meet these needs. Of this 1,750,000 are newcomers—more than in 1939—and the other 500,000 is made up of people who have left the distributive trades and the professions.
The second question has only to be asked for us to be able to answer it from our own knowledge. There is no doubt that the shortage is likely to last. The first reason is the re-armament programme and Service recruitment. As more men go into the Services or extend their periods of training, the drain upon the potential industrial manpower increases, and the re-armament necessary to keep these Service men equipped will call for more and more men for this sort of production.
It is interesting that the figure given in November of last year shows that at the moment we are employing about 850,000 fewer people making equipment and supplies for the Forces than was the case in 1939. Who can deny that if we are to meet the commitments placed upon us, at least this number, if not more, will have to be re-diverted to this work? The short-term prospect means that the manpower shortage is to continue; and, unfortunately, for completely different reasons, the long-term prospects give exactly the same conclusions.
One of the most important reports of recent years is the 1949 Report of the Royal Commission on Population. Every politician, industrialist, trade union official and social reformer should sleep with a copy of this Report under his pillow. It shows, for example, that in 1911 there were 2,100,000 people over 65 years of age—5.3 per cent. of the total population, representing one in 12 of the
364
working population. Twelve young men had to look after their own families and keep one person over the age of 65. Now, owing, I suppose, to the advance in medical science, we have 5,300,000 over the age of 65–10.8 per cent. of the total population, and only one in six of the working population: only six men looking after their own families and to keep one over 65.
It is anticipated that by 1977 the over-65s will total 8,200,000–16 per cent. of the total population and one in four of the working population—only four men keeping their own families and dependants, plus one person over 65 years of age. If we add to this what is happening at the other end of the scale, where young people are being kept from producing by the higher school-leaving age, and what is happening in the middle of the scale, where social service administration is using more and more potential industrial workers, it will be seen that, in the absence of special efforts to halt this trend, we are courting national suicide by slow starvation.
What about the third question? How can this be overcome. I suggest that it must be tackled from many angles, but particularly in a partnership of four—scientists, workers, employers, and the Government. The scientist must concentrate on greater mechanisation to save unnecessary man-power, employers must make use of such inventions, and urge the maximum efficiency on managements and men, workers must forget any old-fashioned Luddite opposition to labour-saving methods, outlaw go-slow methods, and, when in good health, go on working when over 65. Central and local government must reduce its calls on potential productive workers by minimising their form filling and form sending tendencies, as well as providing the right incentives for over-65s to continue at work.
I want to use this debate to call attention to the last—to encourage over-65s to carry on in their employment. In this as on so many other occasions in the past, private industry has recognised the problem before the politicians, and has started to experiment in the ways and means of bringing this about. In my own constituency several of the industries have been trying various methods, and very successfully. One example is Messrs. Baker Perkins, Ltd., who provide an up-

365
lift in the pension to encourage people to carry on over 65, and have so arranged it that the enhanced pension can be shared by a widow of an employee. In this firm they have also started what they call a "grandfather" scheme, employing old men on messenger duties and office boy duties. I am told that their optimum speed is lower than that of younger office boys but that their actual speed is higher because—except on rare occasions—they are less likely to be delayed on the stairs by pretty typists, or wait for the cricket results.
I have another example from Darlaston, where Rubery, Owen have put into operation what they call the "Sons of Rest" workshop scheme. In the two years that have gone by the prospects of this scheme have shown themselves in more distinct lines. At present they have nine participating, and with the exception of one who is only 69, all the others are over 70 and the eldest is 84. At the beginning these men were given the opportunity of determining what hours they wanted to work. It is not without significance that all except one preferred to work the full day. They start work one hour later than the main works, to take them out of the rush and give them an extra hour in bed, and they carry on until 5 p.m. for the whole of the five working days. The method is interesting. Suitable work is selected from the main establishment which the old folk can reasonably handle. The men are paid normal day rates according to their skill, and no pressure is applied as to how speedily they work. There is no restriction on the number of times they may rest, but the occasions they take advantage of the opportunity to rest are very few in number, and the quality of their work and the speed with which it is turned out compare very favourably with the results in the main establishment.
The firm are satisfied that they have got over their teething troubles, and are ready to justify their experiment still further by extending it to many more of their workpeople. I do feel that the Government should be giving more attention—active attention—towards this important end. The Government should set a better example by engaging older people for, or keeping old people in, the Civil Service and the nationalised industries and the public corporations.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of what has been done in this direction in the Civil Service to retain people after the normal retiring age? The Government have been doing it for 10 years.
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is, obviously, easily satisfied because, as the numbers employed show, in the Civil Service or the nationalised industries rules seem all too keen to get employees to the age for retirement.
As a result of trying to bring the facts to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary, I hope that the Government will follow the lines I have mentioned of firms at Peterborough and Darlaston; I hope they will check up on these schemes so that other firms, as well as the Government, can take advantage of the experiments which have been made. That is the general line, but in addition, I feel that it is worth the while of the Government to think about whether they should still follow the present retirement pension system. I say that because it has outlived itself. If the old age pension could be paid in addition to any wages earned, I am certain that more of the over-65s would carry on in employment.
One meets far too many cases nowadays where a person says, "I have paid for the pension, and would like to enjoy it." Many do not think they may live to the age of 70, and they say that if they could get their first pension now and go on working they would keep their jobs in order to earn the extra money to meet the high cost of living today. If that cannot be done, I suggest that the figure for casual earnings should be raised to at least 60 shillings before the pension is stopped; but, if that is a little too ambitious, then I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give some support to the Private Member's Bill which is to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. G. Longden) on this subject, because the general outline of that Bill is one which must commend itself to anyone in the country today who appreciates the seriousness of our commitments and who wishes to meet them.
The whole problem being discussed tonight is vital to the nation's industrial position; but, quite apart from that most important aspect, it is a very human

367
matter. It is surely better than we should have old people at work than that we should take married women away from their homes and their children; and it is good for the old people, because it ensures that they earn money, and it is good for their health as a result of their being fully occupied. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has had a very friendly conversation with me before this debate, as a result of which I find that we have a great deal in common, that when warm humanity and cold economic fact call for exactly the same thing, then the Government has a duty. That duty is to be both alert and vigorous in giving a satisfactory answer to this call.
12.14 a.m.
Mr. Jack Jones: I will not keep the House for more than a few minutes, but the hon. Member has raised an important point and one about which I am not very satisfied. He said that somebody had drawn a line which meant that people arbitrarily had to finish work. I would ask him where is it that that line has been drawn, and who is it who has drawn it?
Sir William Darling: National Insurance.
Mr. Jones: These lines have been drawn by those engaged in that form of industry known as private enterprise. There have been Government concerns in this, but mainly it has been private enterprise. I think the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) should be complimented on having made one of the first really constructive speeches which has come from the Opposition benches for a very considerable time. I pay tribute to it, for it was a constructive speech designed to help the Government to divert labour in our difficult times.
There are hon. Members here who have advocated for some considerable time the extension of working hours by the younger people. I make no apology for being one of the chief advocates for that, and I fully and completely agree that because a man is 65 years of age, that is not the test. Age is not the test of a man's ability to serve his fellow-men. I know Men of 45 years who are hopeless and useless and men of 65 years and beyond, in my own industry, who are
368
some of the finest steel-workers in the world.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough in bringing this matter forward in the knowledge that there is in some of our older people a better class of workmen who, in some cases, have a greater patriotism than some of the younger generation have shown. They are the type we shall have to depend upon. I want to remind the House that arbitrary lines have been drawn primarily by private enterprise interests. The Government itself set a very high standard, when the Prime Minister appealed to the country two years ago, or perhaps a little longer, for men over 65 years of age to continue in employment.
We, on this side of the House, saw that then, and the Prime Minister made his statement accordingly, and that statement holds good. I congratulate the hon. Member in regard to the firms he mentioned, and in which I have some peculiar, specific knowledge, who have set a standard which, I hope, will be followed for the good of the country.
Mr. Angus Maude: I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. J. Jones) said, but does he not agree that these arbitrary lines—the age limits—were, in fact, laid down by both sides of industry, in agreement? The trade unions were as anxious to get this, in the interests of promotion, as anybody else.
Mr. Jones: That may be true in normal circumstances. When markets of the world and demands are normal, one can lay down agreements. But in the present circumstances, no trade union in its fight senses would want to do anything but give elasticity to the agreement in the interests of the nation.
12.17 a.m.
Wing Commander Bullus: Even at this late hour, the House will recognise that the subject raised is an important one which exercises the minds of a large and important section of the community. I think there was a special significance in the problem a few years ago when many ex-Members of this honourable House found they had practical and personal experience of the difficulty of finding suitable employment once middle-age had been reached. That was

369
in the exodus of 1931 and, to a lesser degree, that was the experience last year. In the present period of apparent full employment, finding suitable work for the over-50s becomes at once a special problem.
I wish to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to one doubtful aspect of the problem about which I would like some information and about which questions have been asked today. I want to be very brief, because there are only a few minutes left in which the Parliamentary Secretary may reply. It would appear that of many private employment agencies in this country some are disreputable. They usually fail to find jobs after the payment of registration fees, and, if jobs are found, commission is exacted. The current number of the "British Legion Journal," which, no doubt, many hon. Members have read, calls attention to this malpractice and quotes cases. I have not time to do so, but only to refer hon. Members to the cases quoted in the journal. There are cases on the files of the British Legion where ex-Service men have lost anything from £10 to £100, and the ex-Service men particularly are hit in seeking employment. Many of them are over 50 years of age. It is to be hoped that the Ministry of Labour can weed out these disreputable agencies without affecting the established ones which serve a useful purpose for the community.
12.20 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) for raising this extremely important problem, and I am sure I am expressing the wish of the whole House when I say I wish we could have had more time to spend on this vital matter. I have only six or seven minutes left to me and I obviously cannot develop this as much as I would like. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government appreciate the tremendous importance of this issue. We know that the increased expectation of life is a very fine thing, but it does bring in its train certain problems which we have not had to face before. For instance, in 1911, 67 per 1,000 of the population were men over 65 and women over 60; in 1947 the
370
proportion was 131 per 1,000; and we estimate that by 1977 the proportion will be 192 per 1,000.
I believe that, in the main, it is a question of getting a new attitude of mind towards this problem. I think we all agree that today men of 65 and women of 60 are far fitter than ever they have been in our industrial experience. Therefore, as we see this welcome tendency for older people to remain fit, we must get rid of the old conception of employers, and employees as well in many respects, of thinking that because in certain insurance Acts there is an age limit of 65 for men and 60 for women that is the age at which they should feel old, and retire.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point when he mentioned the fact that earnings over a certain level penalised a person in receipt of a pension. I think that is an issue we must look at. I cannot commit the Government in any way tonight, but I appreciate the great importance of it. I do not believe it is true to say, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the Government are way behind certain very advanced firms, who I congratulate most heartily on the schemes they have put into being. I should like to see many more private firms emulate their example. The Government have a very fine example in this respect. I do not want to go through the whole of the figures I gave on a previous occasion, but the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that of non-industrial male civil servants in posts on 1st April, 1950, 36 per cent. of a total of 304,000 were over 50 years of age.
Brigadier Clarke: We are talking of people over 60 years of age.
Mr. Lee: I believe that if that general level were to obtain throughout the whole of industry this problem would not exist.
Brigadier Clarke: The problem is not with those of 50, but those of 60.
Mr. Lee: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads the speech I made on 19th July last he will see that I dealt with the question of people of 60 years of age as well.
Our policy is designed to encourage the employment of older workers to the maximum extent. It is not only based on the general shortage of labour,

371
especially for the defence and export programmes, but because of the increasing span of life and better standards of life and fitness. The expansion of the defence programme makes it imperative that labour resources should be fully employed, and that the total of the employed workers should be supplemented by the employment of all men and women willing and able to give useful service, irrespective of age, and in some cases, indeed, in spite of disabilities. If full use is not made of the whole labour force of the country the impact of the defence programme on exports and production for home consumers must inevitably be accentuated.
Equally important are the long-term aspects of the changes in the age groupings of the population. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are most seriously concerned. The Minister has placed this matter before the National Joint Advisory Council. We discussed it with representatives of both employers and trade unions, and they assured us of their cooperation in circularising their members to ensure that this new aspect of things there is an understanding that we cannot constantly increase the number of pensioners while, at the same time, giving a
372
far greater percentage of the national income to the young people, in school meals and all those facilities, and, at the same time, give a rising standard of living to the workers in industry as well unless we can keep a larger number of people in industry, using better methods of productivity, and in that manner extend the "cake" so that all sections can enjoy a higher standard of life.
That is our aim and object, and I hope that from this debate the country as a whole will realise the importance of this issue, and that, although we all require and wish to see an expanding economy, a higher standard of life for all our people, we cannot go on increasing the number of people who are retiring from industry and expect the higher standard of life which we would all like to give them, unless we can get higher productivity from those who remain within industry.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having been continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (APPEALS)
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (APPEALS)
  SOCIAL SURVEY
  SOCIAL SURVEY
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Stationery (Tax)
  Stationery (Tax)
  National Union of Manufacturers
  National Union of Manufacturers
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Temporary Clerks
  Temporary Clerks
CIVIL SERVICE
  Working Hours
  Working Hours
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Japanese (Visas)
  Japanese (Visas)
  Pyrites and Ore Imports
  Pyrites and Ore Imports
  Census of Distribution
  Census of Distribution
  Iron and Steel Exports, Canada
  Iron and Steel Exports, Canada
  Utility Cotton Drill (Prices)
  Utility Cotton Drill (Prices)
  Sulphur Allocations
  Sulphur Allocations
  Circus Equipment (Import)
  Circus Equipment (Import)
  Apple Wraps
  Apple Wraps
  Patents (Applications)
  Patents (Applications)
  Hong Kong and China (Exports)
  Hong Kong and China (Exports)
BRITISH ARMY
  Hospital, Netley
  Hospital, Netley
  Officers' Uniforms
  Officers' Uniforms
  Troops, Korea
  Troops, Korea
  Rugby League Football
  Rugby League Football
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Class Z Reserve
  Class Z Reserve
  Service Personnel, Hong Kong (Pay)
  Service Personnel, Hong Kong (Pay)
  Military Pensioners (Income Limit)
  Military Pensioners (Income Limit)
  Young Soldiers (Privilege Pass)
  Young Soldiers (Privilege Pass)
  PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CHARGES)
  PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CHARGES)
WATER SUPPLIES
  Rural Areas, Dover
  Rural Areas, Dover
  Brightling and Dallington
  Brightling and Dallington
  SAND AND GRAVEL
  SAND AND GRAVEL
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (DOG LICENCE REMINDERS)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (DOG LICENCE REMINDERS)
HOUSING
  Huts, Kirkby
  Huts, Kirkby
  Requisitioning Applications
  Requisitioning Applications
  Evicted Families
  Evicted Families
  Building Labour Force (Incentives)
  Building Labour Force (Incentives)
  Rent Restriction Acts
  Rent Restriction Acts
  Re-armament Workers
  Re-armament Workers
  Destroyed Property (Compensation)
  Destroyed Property (Compensation)
  WALES (ADMINISTRATION)
  WALES (ADMINISTRATION)
  DRIVING TEST EXAMINERS (PAY)
  DRIVING TEST EXAMINERS (PAY)
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Old Age Pensioners
  Old Age Pensioners
  Prisoners (Contributions)
  Prisoners (Contributions)
EMPLOYMENT
  Blackpool
  Blackpool
  Coal Mines (Foreign Labour)
  Coal Mines (Foreign Labour)
  Catering Wages Act
  Catering Wages Act
  Cardiff
  Cardiff
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Factories and Workshops (Report)
  Factories and Workshops (Report)
  L.C.C. Estate, Merstham
  L.C.C. Estate, Merstham
  FUEL AND POWER (COAL PRICE INCREASE)
  FUEL AND POWER (COAL PRICE INCREASE)
  EDUCATION (SUB-NORMAL CHILDREN, KENT)
  EDUCATION (SUB-NORMAL CHILDREN, KENT)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (CHELTENHAM)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (CHELTENHAM)
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  ARMED FORCES (DISABLED MEN, EMPLOYMENT)
  ARMED FORCES (DISABLED MEN, EMPLOYMENT)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Earl Wavell—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PLAIN CLOTHES MOTOR POLICE PATROLS
2.35 p.m.
EARL HOWE: 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 a conference of chief constables has recently been held on the subject of the employment of plain clothes motor police patrols, and whether His Majesty's Government have any statement to make.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the employment of plain clothes police for motor patrol duty was only one of a number of subjects discussed at a recent conference of chief constables. As I informed the House on a previous occasion, the measures taken by the police to prevent and detect breaches of the law arc primarily the responsibility of individual chief officers of police; but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department informed the conference that, in the light of the appalling toll of casualties from road accidents, His Majesty's Government are in sympathy with any measure, including the proper employment of plain clothes patrols, which has as its object the prevention of dangerous driving and the detection of that small minority of selfish and reckless motorists who at present disregard the law.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that a scientific investigation was carried out by the Road Research Board into the employment of "courtesy cops," when it was found that the scheme resulted in a 10 per cent. diminution of accidents in the areas where it operated. If plain clothes
270
motor patrols are to be instituted, can he arrange with the director of the Road Research Board that the same careful and scientific investigation into their activities will be carried out as was done in the case of the "courtesy cop" scheme?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the question which appears on the Order Paper asked whether the Government have any statement to make following the recent conference of chief constables. What the noble Earl has just placed before the House may or may not be accurate—I cannot say at the moment, but it does not arise out of the Question. However, I will take a note of what the noble Earl has said and convey it to my right honourable friend.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon if he thinks my supplementary question does not arise out of the main Question. I wanted to obtain a statement from the Government on the whole situation. The noble Lord has now given me a statement which shows that his right honourable friend the Home Secretary is in favour of plain clothes patrols as a contribution towards dealing with the problem of road accidents—a problem we are all anxious to solve. I hope that my supplementary question will not be lost sight of when this matter comes to be considered.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I assure the noble Earl that his supplementary question will not be lost sight of; but if he desires a full answer to a lengthy question I suggest that he should give notice of it and then I shall try to oblige.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I shall certainly give the noble Lord notice.

AIRCRAFT LANDINGS IN BAD WEATHER
2.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Report of Lord Brabazon on the relative responsibilities of pilots and aerodrome authorities in relation to landings in bad weather has been received, and whether they have any statement to make upon it.]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for giving me an opportunity of making a short statement. The Report of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has been received and is being published to-day. I can say at once that His Majesty's Government accept in principle the Report, including the main recommendation that the operator, and not the State, should continue to be responsible for laying down weather minima to be observed by the pilots of aircraft in landing at, and taking off from, aerodromes. The Report includes a number of suggestions for detailed safeguards which are receiving intensive study in my Department. The most significant of these is that arrangements should be made for the measurement of "runway visual range." This is a recent concept and has been the subject of experiments at London and Hum Airports. The object is to provide reliable information as to the distances at which a pilot about to land can differentiate between the runway and the strip surrounding it.
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord very sincerely indeed for undertaking this important and highly technical inquiry and completing it so expeditiously and effectively. I need hardly say how valuable it is to His Majesty's Government to receive, on a matter such as this, the advice of the noble Lord, with all his vast experience, and of the distinguished gentlemen who assisted him. He occupies, if I may say so, a unique position in civil aviation, not only in Britain but everywhere, and it is not the first time (nor I should hope will it be the last) when His Majesty's Gov-ernment and I myself as Minister have had reason to be deeply grateful to him.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, for making that statement. We shall all want to study carefully the Report, which I understand will be in our hands to-day. Certainly, no one would want to make any comment until we have had that opportunity. It well may be that at a later stage we shall wish to have, as I think it will be useful to have, a discussion on this matter. Certainly we should all pay close regard to the recommendations which come from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara,
272
who has been an amicus curiœ to every Minister, of both Civil and Service aviation. I should like to ask two questions arising from the noble Lord's answer. He says that the main recommendation, which he accepts, is that the operator— which means the operating company, I take it?—
LORD PAKENHAM: Yes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: —shall be responsible for laying down weather minima to be observed by the pilots of aircraft landing at and taking off from aerodromes. One of the things that has caused us a good deal of anxiety, and must have caused anxiety to the noble Lord himself, is not so much the responsibility placed upon the operating company, but the individual responsibility placed upon the pilot to decide whether or not he is to land. Does the Report deal with the question of responsibility for deciding that an airport should be put out of use at a given time; and does the recommendation exclude from this the Minister responsible for the airports? I apologise if I am taking rather long over a supplementary question, but this matter is so important that I feel the noble Lord would wish to deal with it. The really difficult case is when a pilot comes in to land and visibility is very bad. The pilot, under present rules, on information given by the ground authorities, has to take the individual decision of whether or not to land. I would suggest that there may be times when it would be much better that the authority responsible for the airport should take the decision of saying: "This airport is to be put out of action, and nobody is to land." All I ask is whether that is excluded by the Report and by the noble Lord's acceptance of the principle of the Report. The other matter I should like to raise is whether we could be told (it is possible that this is in the Report) what is the practice in this matter in foreign countries, and particularly in the United States of America, who have, I suppose, much greater experience than anybody else.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his friendly reception of what I have said. However, he places me in some difficulty. I agree with him that it may be desirable to have a full discussion of all these matters, and I am entirely in the hands of the House. As regards the second

273
question that he raised, I can say that in Appendix D a specific account is given of the various weather minima adopted by other States, and the methods in use. Of course, the noble Viscount has received the document only at this moment, and if more information is desired I have no doubt it can be obtained.
I am hesitant about answering the first question asked by the noble Viscount. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has drawn up a carefully balanced Report, and I would suggest, with respect, that the noble Viscount may wish to study that Report in detail before we pursue the matter further. I do not think one could give a clear answer "Yes" or "No" to the question whether the airport is ever to be put out of action by the authorities. Speaking very broadly, the answer is that in that respect the practice would remain close to the present practice. However, safeguards are introduced which are set out in the Report, and I venture to think that the noble Viscount will desire to study those before we go further into the matter.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord.

SPECIAL TRAINS
2.47 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: 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 what is the policy of the British Transport Commission in regard to the running of special trains for social or sporting engagements during the present coal crisis, and whether this policy has the approval of His Majesty's Government.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, as one of the measures to meet the Government's request to reduce the coal consumption on the railways, the British Transport Commission have decided that, until the duration of the reduction is known, excursion trains will be run only in connection with events for which a large public travel demand exists, or where definite commitments to organisers have been undertaken. Other special excursion trains have been withdrawn.

ISLAND OF ARRAN PIERS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

SUMMER TIME ORDER. 1951
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I feel sure that this Motion and the Order which it covers will be non-controversial, but it seems to be desirable that in moving it I should mention one or two matters without making a speech. Under the Summer Time Acts originally placed upon the Statute Book the period of summer time in any one year was from April 22 to October 7. In 1947 an amending Act was passed which gave Parliament the right to vary those dates to meet any circumstances that might arise. Last year the dates were varied and the period that had been enforced before that occasion was shortened by three weeks. On this occasion, because of the difficulties of the present time, the Government feel that they should maintain what we agreed to in 1950. Therefore, summer time in 1951 will be from April 15 to October 21: in other words, the period will be three weeks longer than under the original Acts. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRANSPORT (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I should like once again to repeat my remarks made during the Second Reading, when I endeavoured to make clear to your Lordships that the Bill was not introduced as an attempt to overturn the basis of the Transport Act but, on the contrary, to amend it and make it a more reason-able and workable measure. I do not think anyone can say that this measure is

275
working effectively at the present time. I suggest that the noble Lord who has replied on behalf of His Majesty's Government during the various stages of the Bill has taken a very narrow view, in spite of the number of Amendments which have been introduced from this side of the House in support of the interests of the Transport Commission and to meet objections raised by the noble Lord himself. It has even been suggested that this Bill would cripple the operations of the Transport Commission. How can it possibly have that effect when the road haulage assets of the Transport Commission amount to barely 5 per cent. of the total assets?
The main argument put forward by His Majesty's Government for the rejection of the Bill appears to be that they have purchased for a sum of £70,000,000 a monopoly of long-distance road haulage, and that if the present short-distance area of twenty-five miles is extended the greater part of this sum would be lost to the taxpayer. I would ask your Lordships to look at that argument a little more closely. In the first place, it is not true to say that the Transport Commission have purchased a monopoly. The fact is that the Commission have purchased a number of businesses on the basis of profits earned under highly competitive commercial conditions, and the greater part of the purchase price has been paid on account of tangible assets such as vehicles, premises, plant, et cetera. Only a comparatively small part of that sum; and certainly nothing like £70,000,000, can in fact be compensation for cessation of business.
On October 31 last year, the Minister of Transport indicated that a provisional ascertainment in respect of undertakings compulsorily acquired amounted to some £25,000,000, and obviously very much less than that figure must represent compensation for cessation of business—in fact, probably less than £10,000,000. As the Bill proposes only to extend the radius of independent hauliers from twenty-five to sixty miles, and the Commission itself has acquired a large interest in the short-distance haulage area, the proportion of the figure of £10,000,000 which might represent a loss to the taxpayer must be very small indeed. The figure of £70,000,000 has no relation whatever to the real position. In fact, I would say
276
that the loss to the taxpayer, if any, would be more than compensated by the acceptance of this amending Bill, which would have the effect of ensuring an efficient service to the taxpayer which he is not getting at the present time, and might well obviate the necessity, in many cases, of his running his own vehicles under a "C" licence. Moreover, the unfortunate taxpayer, who is now supposed to own the nationalised transport industry, will no doubt in due course be called upon to pay for its losses. I need hardly remind your Lordships that the losses incurred by the Transport Commission are prodigious. The Commission have taken over well-known firms with historical names in the road haulage industr— firms which in the past have made large profits under private enterprise. But what do we find now? Losses are mounting day by day, and during the last accounting period appear to have risen to something over £1,000,000—over £1,000,000 lost on road transport. It is almost unbelievable that such an organisation could lose so much money in so short a time since the nationalisation of this great industry.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships to-day with references to the various clauses in the Bill, but I would again point out that the Bill was introduced largely to provide that competition between the nationalised industry and privately-owned haulage companies should be on a fair basis. The Commission has acquired a substantial interest in short-distance road haulage—far more than was anticipated when the original Act was passed. The Commission has shown no willingness to leave the short-distance traffic to the independent haulier, and, in fact, I would say is attempting to bring about a monopoly in that field. The Road Haulage and Railway Executives are constantly opposing applications by hauliers for renewal of licences, and they have even issued to their local officials a policy statement, a copy of which I have in my hand. This policy statement is an indication to their local officials of the procedure to be adopted in opposing such applications for licences. Now what does this document say which has been issued to road haulage officials? It says, in one case, that applications for "A" and "B" licences within the present permitted area of twenty-five miles are

277
to be opposed by the Road Haulage Executive when, in the words of the document:
"competition for short-distance work is likely to be intensified by diversion of vehicles in consequence of permit refusals by the Road Haulage Executive"
I say that that instruction is contrary to the whole spirit of the Transport Act, 1947, and also contrary to the spirit of the declarations made by the various responsible Ministers concerned.
Not only are the Transport Commission revoking original permits, but, as we see from this document, when the unfortunate road haulier is thereby circumscribed by the present permitted short-distance area, his licences are to be opposed by the transport colossus. Do His Majesty's Government really think that this is justice? The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack used these words during the passage of the principal Act:
"Surely there is no reason why the Commission should butt in and try to run these people off he road."
I maintain that that is exactly what the Transport Commission are trying to do now. I should like to mention for a few minutes one other point which was raised by His Majesty's Government during the earlier proceedings on this Bill. The noble Lord who replied for His Majesty's Government on the Second Reading and other stages of the Bill said that if the short-distance area were extended, operators with no stake in long-distance haulage would be able to
"march in and grab the traffic, free, gratis and for nothing."
The answer to that is quite simple. The fact is that they would not be able to do it because all operators are limited by the provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, under which their licences have to be obtained, and they have to provide proof of need for their services. This Bill does not in any way attempt to interfere with the impartial authority of the licensing authority to judge this matter. I conclude by saying that the distance of sixty miles has been chosen and set down in this amending Bill largely to meet the position of hauliers in coastal areas, who obviously have their areas of operation cut by half, and also to cover what has been considered in the industry as a reasonable day's short-distance work in carrying goods between two towns in
278
almost any part of the country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Teynham.)
2.58 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the great argument of the Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Reading of this Bill—I did not have the pleasure of listening to him, but I read his remarks with care— appeared to be the one, that he had paid, or was going to pay, £70,000,000 for a so-called monopoly, and if the Bill passed that money would be thrown "down the drain." I do not think that that is by any means the whole story, and it would be a pity if the argument were repeated in another place without being exposed. The £70,000,000 is composed of two different parts. There is the amount paid for goodwill, based on two to five years' purchase of profits, and there is the balance paid out for tangible assets. The split is not known, but I hear on good authority that I should not be far wrong in suggesting that £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 out of the £70,000,000 represents the amount attributable to goodwill. This has been based on profits which formerly were of the order of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year. But now there arc no profits and there is no goodwill: if the profits have gone, so has the goodwill gone. I estimate that in 1950, excluding Pickord's, the State read-haulage undertaking was operated at a loss; the profit item on which goodwill was based has gone, and therefore the goodwill has gone. Accordingly, £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 out of the £70,000,000 has already been lost, and that is in spite of a better climate for profit-making than before. The undertakings which previously were operating in fierce competition with each other are now, most of them, in the one hand or the other of the State. Internal competition has been to a large extent eliminated.
Moreover, these results have not come about from offering better services. The services are notoriously worse than before; the increased demand for "C" licences is surely a proof of that. There has been increased empty running, increased standing time, waste of petrol and waste of man-hours, on a scale which has probably never been seen in this country before. In fact, with those items, taken together with the loss of goodwill, I think I should not be exaggerating if I said that

279
State road haulage has lost the community more than the ground-nut scheme lost. The Parliamentary Secretary may argue that, given time, he will recoup these losses, but he will do so only by squeezing the community: in other words, by taking it out of one pocket and putting it into the other so that no one will be better off. He may delude himself that these are only teething troubles and that things will get better in time, but if he does, I think he will be ignoring one fundamental fact, and that is that the decline in profit is the measure of the difference of the service which men are able to give to a large State undertaking and the service they were able to give to the small and more personal road operators before nationalisation. The more the regulations, the less flexible the service—and for road haulage it is flexibility that the consumer requires.
This is an excellent Bill, but it is only a start. It brings up the old problem which we have never yet solved—the roadrail problem. We must have rail-ways, and the more we use them the cheaper they are to run; but the trouble is that rail cannot provide the door-to-door facilities which convenience demands. Moreover, as at present run, the railways are incapable of providing a safe and certain carriage of merchandise to the consumer; and speed, convenience and certainty are very often more important than price. For instance, when somebody has to send goods to catch a ship at the docks, speed and certainty are more important than price. Or perhaps component parts have to be sent to a mass production assembly to take their place on the right day in that assembly; and again, speed and certainty are more important than price. A further trouble is that technically, for various reasons, road haulage is likely to be able to improve its methods at a faster pace than can the railways—so that the road has the advantage in all ways. It certainly has speed, certainty, convenience and price.
We must face this problem sooner or later: and the Transport Act has certainly not produced any solution. I submit that we must have efficiency, and if necessary we must cut our losses on State road haulage and sell the assets to anybody who will buy them. Then we must devise a system whereby we can have free
280
competition between road and rail, but placing some handicap on the road; and that handicap, instead of being a mileage handicap, ought to be a money handicap. Speed, convenience and certainty are often just as important to the sender of merchandise for long distances as they are to the man who sends merchandise for short distances. Any mileage solution begs this particular question. There are various methods of handicapping, and I will not go into them. Such a method as I have suggested would provide the public with a choice, and both road and rail would have an incentive to increase efficiency in order to take away traffic from each other. Moreover, it would provide rail with a set-off to their many onerous obligations as common carriers, their obligations to provide mineral carriage at reasonable rates, to provide unremunerative services, and so on. The sender of goods by road, in fact, would be paying a contribution for the privilege and convenience of having a railway system at his beck and call to which he could look in case of emergency.
The only other system which will provide free competition between the two is a régime of perpetual subsidy for the rail in one form or another after the various methods have been put forward. I submit that we must have a rail system, we must have road haulage and we must have "C" licences—though in the aggregate the community must pay the bill. Taking all these factors into consideration, and remembering that speed, convenience and certainty are not always assessable in money terms, I believe that the system I have outlined is the cheapest one for the community. I am certain that the present one is not the cheapest. Many of its inconveniences are impossible to measure in money; it is impossible to say how much we are paying for this experiment in socialisation, though there is no doubt that it is a large sum.
3.9 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, it has always been a feature in this country that the number of small businesses which, in almost every activity, have formed what I might call the matrix within the larger concerns have been able to develop and for the most part avoid the inefficiency of monopoly. It has been a situation that has encouraged the individual to seek responsibility and to do his best to get the

281
customers to believe that it is what they want that comes first, and not what some remote official thinks is good enough for them. That, I know, is so in industry, and I believe it to be so in many other walks of life. Certainly, it is so in the case of transport. Unless we are constantly on guard to preserve the small man and to see that he has real opportunities and encouragement, we shall lose him as an essential part of our economy and, with his loss, we shall not merely lose what I think is the only spur to efficiency which can be effective against our large nationalised monopolies, but also be condoning the growth among our customers of that cancer of being prepared to put up with the mediocre. All we have tried to do in this Bill which my noble friend has taken so skilfully through your Lordships' House is, as he has said, not to undermine the British Transport Commission, but to make certain that the independent haulier within the radius of short haulage permitted to him may have the chance of competing under really fair and impartial conditions, with the chance of being able to make a decent living. Perhaps even more important, we want the users of transport to have available, at any rate for local work, that personal attention which both my noble friends before me have mentioned, which is so much easier for the small firm to offer and which in turn can be used as a yardstick against which the nationalised service, both on long and short haulage, can be assessed.
Thus, in Clause 1 we have widened the radius within which the independent haulier can operate without permit, in order to ensure that he gets a reasonable turnover, despite the growth within that limit of the British Transport Commission. Next, and even more important, in other clauses (in particular Clauses 2 and 4) we have sought to ensure that within the radius which it was surely intended should remain substantially the preserve of the independent operators, the British Transport Commission should be allowed to operate only under a licence issued by an impartial licensing authority. It may have come as a surprise to some of us that, despite all that was said when the 1947 Act was passing through Parliament, to the effect that there was no intention that the Commission should interfere with the legitimate trade of the in-dependent haulier within this twenty-five
282
mile limit or to squeeze him out of business, yet that is what in point of fact has been happening, causing much concern and no little resentment at what is regarded by many as an act of bad faith. For myself, I am not questioning the good faith of noble Lords opposite who supported the original 1947 Bill, but what I do say is that, having set up this great Commission, it was inevitable that it should develop in the way that it has done and that, as the law now stands, the promoters should be virtually powerless to stop it.
Turning from those points, I should like to deal with one mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teynham. It ties closely to what I have just said. I want to refer to the emphasis which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, during the Second Reading debate, appeared to place on the purchase of a monopoly by the Commission. I must admit that, listening to his speech, I was somewhat perplexed on that point, and, whilst I would not for one moment suggest that he intended to mislead, I feel that his remarks could convey a very different meaning from that which I believe to be real. I think it is generally agreed that in passing the 1947 Act Parliament intended that the Transport Commission, apart from the excluded traffics and the machinery of permits, should have what one may call virtually a monopoly for long-distance road haulage. That I am prepared to accept. But when a private individual wants to acquire a monopoly in anything or, to use the noble-Lord's own words, to buy out competition, it is well known that that individual has usually, in the last resort, when the present and existing owners are unwilling sellers, to pay very steeply indeed for it. That was certainly the impression that I gained from what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said with regard to the acquisition of the independent road-haulage undertakings. We all know that, in the case of those acquired compulsorily, the price paid was anything but steep.
If I may, I should like to remind your Lordships what that basis was. It is clearly set down in the Act in Section 47. Property, other than vehicles, was to be bought out at the ruling open market values, assuming that the Act had not been passed. Vehicles were to be purchased on their written down value according to their age and based on the cost of a new

283
vehicle at the time of transfer. No cash was to be taken over. As regards cessation of business, two to five years' net average annual profits, which were defined in the Act in Appendix IX, were to be paid. Something was to be paid for severence according to the increased burden over five years on the part that was left. Here, I do not entirely agree with my noble friend who has just spoken: nothing was to be paid for goodwill. No one could regard those terms as in any way monopoly or inflated prices, and one therefore might easily conclude that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was referring to the payment for those other undertakings which had been previously acquired voluntarily by negotiations before the date when the others were taken over compulsorily. Here, again, that does not seem to be the case.
I would remind your Lordships that on January 24, 1949, in another place there was a Question asking for an assurance that:
"no more compensation will be given where they [the undertakings] are acquired by negotiation than would be payable if they were compulsorily acquired under the Act."
The Minister, in replying, whilst admitting that complete accuracy could not be determined if a business was acquired by voluntary agreement as against the process of arbitration which could be invoked, went on to say:
"But, nevertheless, as a general principle I can give the honourable Member that assurance."
In other words, the whole of the £70,000,000 to which the noble Lord referred in his Second Reading speech was expended on acquiring undertakings either voluntarily or by compulsion on a similar basis. In passing, I should like to know how that £70,000,000 can be analysed under the various headings that I mentioned a few moments ago. I think it would make very interesting reading. I have laboured this point in order to try to deflate the impression that I, at any rate, certainly gained from the noble Lord's speech, that in order to secure to the British Transport Commission a monopoly they had paid monopoly or inflated prices out of the taxpayers' money. The impression I gained, further, was that it was therefore improper of your Lordships to attempt in this Bill to extend the scope of the independent haulier into the
284
private and dearly-bought preserves of the British Transport Commission. I am as jealous of the taxpayers' money as anyone, but if my analysis of the position is a correct one, then I think that picture was an entirely false one.
For want of any counter proposals from noble Lords opposite, I come back to where I started—namely, that all this Bill seeks to do is, if I may use a phrase which I think is in favour these days, to give fair shares as between independent hauliers and the British Transport Commission, and, by so doing, to safeguard the taxpayers' money by keeping the Transport Commission up to the mark.
3.21 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill on Third Reading, and I want to follow up particularly what the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, said about small businesses. The strength of the road haulage industry in this country was built up on small businesses, mainly, of course, concerned with short-distance haulage. Perhaps some noble Lords do not realise how many small businesses there were, some with their vehicles moving about the roads under the names of very big industrial concerns, vehicles belonging to small transport contractors doing permanent contract work for perhaps a steel works or a big chain store, or something of that sort. Many big industrialists realised that they could place their transport in the hands of a small operator who knew his business and could carry out the work more economically than could the industrialist himself. These industrialists are finding that they cannot get this work done by the British Transport Commission, and therefore they are having, reluctantly perhaps, to operate more vehicles under "C" licences.
I think it is essential that there should be allowed to exist a backbone of private hauliers to carry on their businesses under reasonable conditions, and in my view such a reasonable condition would be the sixty miles radius suggested in this Bill. The weakness of the Transport Commission lies in its inability to cope with the unusual request. The Commission can cope with long-distance haulage, which I think should rightly be left to it, but when it comes to an unusual request, tremendous anomalies arise. I heard of an instance

285
the other day when the chief executive of a passenger road undertaking wanted some tunes brought down for the staff cricket ground and bowling green. He applied to the Transport Commission, heard nothing for several days, and eventually received a form on which was a request to give the average weight and dimensions of each turf. Finally, at great expense he had to send one of his own vehicles to get those turves. There was also a case which involved the moving of a piece of heavy machinery. Naturally, that is a tricky job, because nobody knows how it is going to turn out. Previously one could get three or four quotations, which often varied tremendously. Now one has to go to the Transport Commission, which naturally wants to cover itself against loss, and one is sometimes given what is probably an inflated price. I heard of a case the other day, where £1,000 was quoted by the Commission for the unusual job of moving a heavy locomotive. Finally, after some difficulty, the person concerned obtained the services of a private contractor who was still in business, who did not possess the appropriate vehicle but was able to adapt one to the particular job, and the cost was £300.
Another instance I can quote is that of an Australian friend of mine who wanted two trunks taken to a ship sailing for Australia. He was told to get on to a certain depôt of the Road Haulage Executive. He was put in touch with five different people, and even then he did not get an answer; he was told to write in. By then it was too close to sailing time and he had to obtain a Daimler hire car and take the trunks down himself.
It is little odd jobs such as those which I think must be done by the small road transport contractor. When a telephone call comes in about some small, specialised job, there must be available somebody who can think quickly and give an answer. He may give a wrong answer and lose on the job; but that is his funeral—he is prepared to take that business risk. On the other hand, he may make quite a good profit on a job efficiently carried out. He is prepared to take risks and does so because it is part of his job. Once upon a time one was given an immediate answer as to price and date of delivery in regard to a little
286
transport job but not now. Therefore I support this Bill, in particular with regard to the sixty miles radius and also the impartial licensing authority. I think it is essential to have a yardstick and some competition so that the Commission can look to its own laurels and do better next time as regards price, speed and service to the customer.
3.27 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I rise to say only a few words in support of the Bill which is before your Lordships this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who moved the Third Reading, referred to licences. I remember asking the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack a question in 1947, and I quoted certain cases where goods were not being delivered to their destination either in proper order or on the date expected. At that time the noble and learned Viscount gave me an assurance that those goods would be properly delivered. I want to give one reason why not only I but also thousands of small operators who are unable to make their voices heard in Parliament support this Bill—namely, that at the present moment chaos exists. I will quote one case to your Lordships to prove my statement. Some goods were dispatched to me from London on December 8; on December 23 they had not arrived. I telephoned to London and was informed that they had left by road on December 8. They were taken to Bristol and, having arrived there by road, were unloaded and came back on exactly the same route by rail, arriving one day before Christmas. Of course the whole case was; ruined and I have claimed for it. Needless to say, the public are now having to pay for that, and there is no answer to it.
Every customer in the country is complaining. In the West of England, in Bristol and in Birmingham there is not a single customer who is getting the service he had from the small operators before the Act came into operation. I well remember that during the passage of the principal Act noble Lords opposite kept reiterating that only 40,000 vehicles would be affected. I am sure the noble Viscount the Leader of the House did not mean to lead any of your Lordships astray over that matter. I also remember saying that if that Bill went through it would affect not only long-distance

287
operators, but the vast majority of the small operators as well. That is exactly what has happened—and they have been affected under duress. I should have thought that His Majesty's Government would welcome this Bill. In my view, it is the only thing that might save them at the next General Election. They would be able, at any rate, to make one good point: that they had reconsidered the position of the small men, including that of many ex-soldiers of the First World War, whose reward, probably, is going to be that they will now be robbed by the Commission of their rightful dues. That is all I wish to say in support of this Bill. I trust that His Majesty's Government will at long last take a commonsense view of the matter and give this measure their support.
3.30 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I desire to intervene for a very few moments only, for I think your Lordships want to come on a decision on this Bill about which a good deal has already been said. It may not surprise your Lordships if I ask you to direct your attention for a moment north of the Border, and to consider one or two of the special troubles which affect Scotland under the parent Act. There is a good deal of criticism of the working of the parent Act in Scotland, in particular because of its lack of flexibility. One must remember that Scotland is a country of wide open spaces with a considerable concentration of population in a relatively small number of towns and cities. I draw attention to the fact that in Scotland our economy depends to a great extent on our ports. As five examples, I quote Glasgow, Leith, Grangemouth, Aberdeen and Dundee. Under the principal Act anything which is brought by shippers to these docks from outside the radius of twenty-five miles is within the purview of the Commission, except for the specially excepted traffic. If this Bill were accepted, that radius where the independent haulier could compete would be enlarged to sixty miles. I agree that that is another arbitrary figure, but it is one which would provide considerable easement for shippers in Scotland using those docks. On these grounds I urge consideration of this amending Bill. I believe that if it were accepted a
288
great deal of the criticism would be silenced, for I am sure it would be greatly appreciated if it were made possible for shippers to have the advantage of the speed, certainty and convenience which would follow from the extension of the radius to sixty miles.
On the last occasion when this matter was debated I pointed out that our two greatest centres, Glasgow and Edinburgh, are some fifty miles apart; that is to say, they are outside the present limit. But they would be inside the radius provided in this Bill. We hear much in these days about covenants and demands for a greater degree of devolution. Such requests can arise in consequence of neglect of special geographical features and considerations when legislation is being framed. I suggest that this Bill, if accepted, would do much to ameliorate conditions which at present are causing discontent.
3.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I will add just a few words to what has been said before the House passes to a Division if, in fact, we are to divide upon this Bill. I do not think it can be denied that as this Bill has proceeded evidence has accumulated as to its reasonableness alike in the public interest and in justice to road hauliers. No attempt has been made at any stage of the Bill's progress to rebut the evidence which was produced on Second Reading—as indeed at other stages—of inconvenience, delay, damage to goods and increased cost to user. I can assure my noble friend, Viscount Long, that the damage is not confined to liquid assets—I gather, from what he said, that in the instance to which he referred it was "a case" that suffered. The word "case" there, I assume, was used in the way in which Quiller-Couch said "case" ought to be used. Even the most solid things which might be thought to be almost unbreakable seem to be damaged by these people.
There is a feeling in the country—a feeling which is growing by leaps and bounds—that nationalisation has meant less efficiency and higher prices. Road transport is no exception. I have been trying to extract from the Transport Commission's accounts some financial results of road transport. I have been-doing this in view of the homily which

289
was addressed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the last occasion when we discussed this subject. I gather that we are not to hear one from him to-day. My endeavour has been to extract something which would show the true inwardness of the finances of this business. The task has not proved an easy one. I must say I do not think that these accounts are a model; I do not think they can be cited as an example of what I think we all agreed should be done in public companies and what indeed they are now compelled to do under the Act—that is, to show how the different entities of the mammoth monopoly are faring.
Your Lordships will remember it has always been alleged—indeed, this was the case for nationalisation—that the bigger the nationalised industry grows, the more that is absorbed into the whole, the greater the economies, the lower the cost, the greater the profit to the State or the taxpayer and the greater the benefit to the consumer. That, indeed, is the whole case for nationalisation. And it is a case which is still made, though perhaps not in such limpid terms as formerly but in rather more limping terms by noble Lords opposite—at any rate during week-ends, if not in this House. Now how has this simple principle been applied in the case of road transport? I have extracted these figures, In 1948, the Transport Commission had acquired 8,000 vehicles. Their gross receipts were £14,342,000, and their working expenses were £13,211,000; therefore, their net receipts were—it is a simple sum which even I can do— £1,131,000. By 1949, the Commission, by hook or by crook, by agreement or by compulsion, had acquired 35,000 vehicles. Now one would naturally expect that the costs would have gone up—that is all right—but one would also expect that great economies would have been made and that the profit margin would have been considerably increased. What has, in fact, happened? The gross receipts went up to £38,850,000; the working expenses rose to £37,419,000. But the net receipts have increased only from £1,131,000 to £1,432,000. There has been barely any increase at all and, of course, if you take it proportionately there has been a great reduction in the ratio of receipts. That shows that the bigger the industry has grown the less profitable it has been. When you take into account interest on
290
stock, administration charges and depreciation, I do not think that even the noble Lord would be able to show anything but a deficit and not a profit.
It will be said: "Of course, a profit was not made; the profit motive is an undesirable thing and it was quite right that this business should make losses because it rendered much better service at much less cost to the user." But, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Charges have steadily gone up. I know it may be said that the independents have raised their charges. Of course, they have had to do so. Everyone has had to do so for everything has gone up, except the cost of living index figure, whatever that may mean. When nine-pence was imposed in extra taxation on petrol and tyres became more expensive, that naturally put up the cost of transport, and there had to be some increase in charges.
I make the noble Viscount the Leader of the House a present of this fact: if a mathematical calculation is made, I think-it is broadly true to say that the charges of both the Transport Commission and of the independent hauliers have gone up by 17½ per cent. But that is not a true comparison in the least, because they did not start level. What happened in the past was that the independent hauliers had a variety of rates. As a noble Lord said to-day, when a man wanted business done, he obtained the best quotation he could, and he was able to get a quotation from a number of people who knew their business and were in keen competition. The result was that the rates varied a good deal, and, generally speaking, were much lower than the basic from which the Transport Commission started. We do not get a quotation of that sort to-day from the Government monopoly. On the contrary, when the Government monopoly took over these businesses and found that the rate on this or that class of business was fairly low, or, say, the rate from Sheffield to London was lower than the rate from Birmingham to London, they raised all the rates below the higher rate to a nice, good, high basic level, so that no one could start from the lower basic rate. If 7½per cent. is added to that, the increased charge to the user, who is the unfortunate person who has to pay, is a good deal higher in the case of the Commission than it is in the case of the individual operators.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but does he defend the system which was in operation among private hauliers? A trader would get a quotation of, say, £1 a ton from London to Birmingham, and then would go to another road haulage firm and say, "I have had a quotation of £1 a ton; will you do it for 15s.?" Then he went on until he brought it down to 7s. 6d. a ton. Does the noble Viscount defend that system?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: What is wrong about that? I really do not see that there is anything wrong in it. I do not know how the noble Lord conducts his business. I understand he has been successful, but that was not by always accepting the most expensive offer that was made. Is it too outrageous if I go to a tailor and ask him how much he will take to make a suit of clothes, and when he says £50, I then go to Moss Bros, or somebody else and say, "I have been quoted £50 by the tailor to the Labour Party in Savile Row; can you give me a lower quotation?" and when he gives me a lower quotation I buy the suit at the lower price? Are we in Cloud-Cuckoo Land? Why on earth should we not take advantage of a lower offer? I know this is all contrary to the ethics of the Transport Commission. They believe it is outrageous that anybody should quote a lower price than they do. They are going to make jolly certain that nobody is going to quote a lower price than they do. The noble Lord nods his head. I will tell you how they do it: by saying to that man, "If you underquote us, we will not allow your licence to continue and we will put you out of business."
LORD BURDEN: The railway companies have that problem to face, and I was speaking just now as a practical railwayman who had to face it for ten years.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord does not seem to have faced it very successfully. The railway deficit has gone on and on. Does the noble Lord, as a practical transport man, think that the answer to efficient and profitable transport is always to be putting up charges, irrespective of the service given? I do not know whether the noble Lord is a member of one of these boards. Is the noble Lord a member of any board?
LORD BURDEN: No.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Well, there is always a chance. I see vacancies occurring, even among the generals; they are due sometimes to self-inflicted wounds, but sometimes there are more involuntary casualties. But the vacancies go on occurring, and if the noble Lord continues to advocate with such courage and persistence the loss motive which he has presented to us to-day, then I think he is well in the running for a very good job.
Of course we cannot get this decent service to-day. Not hundreds, but thousands of firms who hitherto have been perfectly well served by the independent hauliers, find that even at a high quotation they cannot get the service they need for the conduct of their businesses, and have been driven, in many instances entirely against their will, to buy lorries of their own. In this way the number of "C" licences has gone up to an almost astronomical figure. That would be bad at any time, but it is particularly bad to-day when, with the rearmament programme upon us, the production of the vehicle industry for domestic use must be reduced. This is the last time at which to force people to buy lorries for their own businesses. This is the time when the individual haulier should be encouraged to give the best service he can. But, as with all nationalised industries, undeterred by any financial consideration, the appetite grows with eating. More and more permits are arbitrarily cancelled. Competition is being stifled.
What has been the main complaint in the past against monopoly in private enterprise?—the monopoly practice of stifling all competition and raising prices, which no one on this side of the House has ever defended. Everybody agrees that where that occurs there should be a tribunal which can report upon it, so that it may be stopped. I think that is exactly what the Road Transport Commission are doing to-day. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack asked us why we should be afraid that the Commission would "butt in" on the business of the short distance hauliers. To-day they are cancelling permits, right and left; they are imposing arbitrary conditions upon the hauliers—and they are making no secret of this. I have here the amazing directive already quoted by my noble friend, which has been circulated throughout this monopoly undertaking. It is headed, "General Policy for Opposition to 'A'

293
and 'B' Licences." It seems that the Commission believe that the best form of defence is; attack. I do not know how good the Government are about that in the military sense, but they are certainly pretty good at it here. The directive goes on:
"Applications for 'A' and 'B' licences which permit the carriage of traffic only within twenty-five miles"—
those are the people we were not going to "butt in'' upon, my Lord Chancellor.
"Renewals without modification"—
this is not opposition to an application by a new man coming into the industry, but to an application by a man who is already in the industry and who has held his own in the industry because he has been giving good service—
"to be opposed by any Executive whose interests are affected."
This is the type of man who, I under-stood, in the spirit of what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said with absolute sincerity at the time, would receive renewal practically as a right. The final example where application for renewal is to be opposed is:
"Where competition for short-distance work is likely to be intensified by diversion of vehicles in consequence of permit refusals by the Road Haulage Executive."
There we have the system. I have never known anything in the worst private monopoly come near to this. You put a man out of business in one part of his trade by refusing him leave to continue. Poor devil! What is he to do? He then says: "I must try and make a living with my vehicle. I am allowed to carry on within my twenty-five miles limit, and I may do a little more in that twenty-five miles limit because I have been turned out of the other." But what is the answer to that? It must be opposed. Who is going to be the judge? The Road Haulage Executive. We have always held the principle that where a monopoly was attacked there must be an independent tribunal, and certainly the monopolist should not be a judge in his own cause. But who is the judge, jury, plaintiff and attacker? They are all one and the same, the monopolist Road Haulage Executive. There can be no defence to a glaring, uncontrolled monopoly of that kind.
The Government have made no attempt to deny the truth of these charges; they have made no attempt to deny that in-
294
justice is being meted out to these road hauliers, or that inconvenience, damage and loss is being caused to the manufacturers and traders of this country. If we are to divide here, I trust that your Lordships will do what you can to see justice done alike to the haulier and to the transport user. What may happen to this Bill when it leaves us I do not know; but I am clear as to what is our duty. I am sure that before long a wider tribunal than either House will have the decision in these matters, and I have no doubt what that decision will be.
3.53 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, we have this afternoon witnessed an interesting demonstration. We had listened to speeches in somewhat similar form on the Second Reading of the Bill, and when I saw this long and impressive list of speakers I asked myself why so many noble Lords felt called upon to repeat their Second Reading speeches, in view of the fact that they knew the attitude which we have consistently adopted in the course of the proceedings on this Bill. I can well understand that there has been a substantial contribution to Party propaganda, and I have no doubt that it will be given due publicity in the appropriate quarters. It may naturally have been thought to be a convenient occasion to add to the sum of Party propaganda. I am not complaining at all; we are all used to that sort of thing. It was also useful, I dare say, to keep the debate going until nearly four o'clock, when there might perhaps be a better attendance than if we had had a Division at three o'clock. I am sure that is a possibility that is not always remote from the mind of an exceedingly competent Party Whip. But, for all that, no new considerations have been brought forward with regard to the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is a most plausible advocate, and we all admire him very much. I thought he did his bit very skilfully. He set out to allay our apprehensions by assuring us that it was not the purpose of this Bill to undermine the Transport Act. That was the thesis of the mover of the Third Reading, but it was not the thesis of any of the subsequent speakers. I will give them credit for their frankness. I made particular note of the frankness of the

295
noble Lord, Lord Hawke. He said that this was only a start in smashing things up. That is an accurate description. That is exactly what it is, and that is why we object to it.
We have considered this matter with great care. It was evident that this Bill, if carried, would make it impossible for the Transport Commission to carry out the duties which Parliament placed upon them under the Act. Several noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—although he camouflaged it with his usual ingenuity—made no bones about it. They said: "We want competition. This Bill is to promote a lot more competition. Let all these fellows come and have a go at it,"—although they may have been paid considerable sums of money not to do so. That is exactly contrary to what the Transport Act was designed to do. It was designed to create a monopoly, and so the Commission had to buy out these people. I do not now say whether that was good, bad or indifferent, but such was the purpose of the Act. Therefore, the present Bill is completely incompatible with that purpose. We have said so right from the start. My noble friend Lord Lucas has already said it at considerable length on previous stages, and I have not asked him to repeat himself to-day. I must confess, however, that I was not too clear as to what the objection raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, about some gentleman who tried to telephone a shipping office about a passage or something, had to do with this Bill.
LORD GIFFORD: What I said was that an Australian friend of mine wished to send two trunks to a ship—it had nothing to do with a passage at all—and he got on to the appropriate office of the Road Haulage Executive. He was referred to four or five different people without getting satisfaction, and was finally told to write in. He did so, but did not get an answer in time to get the trunks away before the ship sailed; and he had to hire a Daimler car at considerable expense and take the trunks down himself.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: All that is quite interesting, and it was a very enlightening five minutes. However, even with the noble Lord's explanation, I do not see what it has to do with this Bill. It spun the time out, at any rate. As all the speeches have shown, the Bill is intended to have, and can only have, the effect of torpedoing the Transport Act. I can understand your Lordships wanting to repeal the Act, but I cannot understand your wanting to nullify the whole thing and, at the same time, pretending that it does not make any difference. I am not going to repeat the arguments to your Lordships, because we have heard them all before. We have had a very skilful Party display—which I duly respect—and all I have to say is that we maintain the attitude, entirely logical and incontrovertible, that we have adopted throughout, and that we shall vote against the Third Reading.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read a third time?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Cholmondeley, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Greville, L.

Exeter, M.

Long, V.

Hampton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Mersey, V.

Harris, L.

Portman, V.

Hawke, L.

Albemarle, E.

Simon, V.

Hindlip, L.

Bessborough, E.

Swinton, V.

Llewellin, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lloyd, L.

Carlisle, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Mancroft, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Badeley, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Halifax, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Milverton, L.

Howe, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Monkswell, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Belstead, L.

Monson, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brocket, L.

Newall, L.

Manvers, E.

Burnham, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Onslow, E.

Carrington, L. [Teller.]

Palmer, L.

Ypres, E.

Cawley, L.

Rochdale, L.

Cherwell, L.

Saltoun, L.

Allenby, V.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam).

Schuster, L.

Allendale, V.

Clydesmuir, L.

Teynham, L.

Buck master, V.

Courtauld-Thomson, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Gifford, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Chorley, L.

Marley, L.

Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Crook, L.

Merthyr, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morrison, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Ogmore, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Pakenham, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Piercy, L.

Hall, V.

Henderson, L.

Rochester, L.

St. Davids, V.

Holden, L.

Shepherd, L.

Stansgate, V.

Kershaw, L.

Silkin, L.

Lawson, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Amwell, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Bingharo, L. (E. Lucan.) [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendments (privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at nine minutes past four o'clock.