Sitting of 4 July 1951

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TELEVISION

    Postponed Development
    Miss Irene Wardasked the Postmaster-General which regions have had their television development curtailed owing to the reduction of the capital investment programme; and which regions retain the proposed television stations.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): In accordance with the Government's decision announced on 14th March, five low-powered stations which the B.B.C. proposed to build near Aberdeen, Belfast, Newcastle, Plymouth and Southampton have been postponed indefinitely; present plans are to complete high-powered stations at Holme Moss, Kirk o'Shotts and Wenvoe.
    Miss Ward: Could I have the last words repeated? I did not quite hear.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: We cannot hear a word.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I said, present plans are to complete high-powered stations at Holme Moss, Kirk o'Shotts and Wenvoe.
    Miss Ward: Am I to understand that all development on television stations is postponed?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No. I said that the high-powered stations would be completed but that the low-powered stations would not be proceeded with.
    Mr. Blyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that great disappointment will be caused particularly on the North-East coast where it is felt that the people of London always get these amenities and the North-East coast is neglected?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I quite understand that feeling, but to proceed with these low-powered stations would interfere with the defence programme.
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: How much delay is anticipated in the completion of the station at Kirk o' Shotts? Is that running to programme?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It is fairly well up to schedule.
    Brigadier Peto: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the proposed station for North Devon will be proceeded with or not?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This Question refers to television and not to sound broadcasting.

    Interference (Advisory Committees)
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Postmaster-General how many times his advisory committee, set up under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, has met; what was the last occasion on which it met; and what advice he has received.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The committee considering ignition systems has met four times, the last occasion being 9th April, 1951. The committee considering refrigeration apparatus has met three times, its last meeting being on the 26th February, 1951. There have also been eight meetings of sub-committees. Neither committee has yet submitted a report.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Would the Minister not agree that this is very limited assistance I am asking him to give the television viewer, and could he not do something to hurry up the committee? Is he not aware there is nothing in the Act that prevents his inviting this committee to tender some advice?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that some representations are now under consideration for submission to me. Many of the remedies proposed have already been subjected to experimental tests. It is a highly technical matter, but I am sure

    2291
    that the committee recognises the need for hastening this business.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the Minister not aware that the technical complications to which he referred have been known in this country for the last 12 years and have been fully recognised, and that I am only asking him to suppress motor car interference?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The committee is concerned to find a remedy for these things, but I understand that there are still technical difficulties about the drafting of the report.

    Holme Moss Station
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Postmaster-General if the Holme Moss television station is yet completed; when it is to be opened; when it will provide a regular programme; and what area will be covered by this station.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The installation of equipment at this station is virtually complete and final adjustments are being made. The B.B.C. hopes to start preliminary test transmissions this month; and later to introduce test patterns to assist viewers and radio dealers in the setting up and adjustment of receivers. The B.B.C. hopes also to begin a regular programme service early in October. The service area of the station is expected to include most of Lancashire and the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire, substantial parts of the North Riding, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and the whole of the counties of Cheshire and Flint.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Who is going to declare the station open?
    Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be adequate reception in the Tees-side area from this station?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. I could not prophesy as to that.
    Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the Minister say why it takes three months to provide programmes after testing signals have been radiated? Is it due to delay in providing land lines or radio links by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The link is by land lines. There is no difficulty about that.
    2292
    The land lines must be there for the test transmissions, and the land lines are in order.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Then why the delay?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand the delay is in perfecting technical arrangements at the transmitter.

  POST OFFICE

    Neyland, Pembrokeshire
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Postmaster-General the purpose of changing the postal address of Neyland, Pembrokeshire, to Neyland, Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire, in view of the fact that parcels have to come to Neyland, go on to Milford and then come back, and that Milford postmen are delivering letters in Neyland and Neyland postmen are delivering letters in Milford.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The change was made in order to meet staffing difficulties; all postal parcels for Neyland circulate first to Milford Haven.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great indignation which exists in Neyland, and could he also tell me how much is being saved by having a person from Neyland going to Milford to deliver letters and having to find his way in a strange town, and a Milford man going to Neyland to deliver letters?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Neyland indignation cannot be satisfied unless we can find a Neyland postman. That is one of the difficulties. The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is that we are saving a substantial sum of money every week.
    Mr. Donnelly: Can my right hon. Friend say how much?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Not without notice.
    Mr. Donnelly: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Postal Facilities
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Postmaster-General when he expects it will be possible to improve postal facilities, especially as regards later collection of mail.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Since the beginning of this year later evening posting facilities have been introduced in some 900 towns: any further material improvement in facilities is for the present precluded by the need to avoid additional calls on manpower.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is the Postmaster-General aware that a letter from London to Morecambe and Lonsdale, or vice-versa, takes longer now than it did in the last few years—longer even than it did 50 years ago?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not accept that conclusion at all.

    Staff Associations (Recognition)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the dates on which oral evidence was heard by his advisory committee on recognition questions from organisations concerned, identifying the organisations in each case; and on what dates arrangements have been made for other organisations to present oral evidence identifying the organisations in each case.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question on 3rd July by my hon. Friend, the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson).
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the absence abroad of one member of his advisory committee on recognition questions will not prevent the formation of a quorum and sittings of that body being continued during the next few weeks.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: As I explained in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on 3rd July, the committee has received a large volume of oral and written evidence, and I have no doubt that it requires a substantial interval between meetings for studying this material.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether these sittings will or will not be interfered with by the absence for some weeks of some of the members of the committee?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand work will proceed. The hon. Member would not like to put himself in the position of
    2294
    harassing a very responsible body of people who are trying to solve a problem which has bedevilled the Department for 25 years.
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: Is it not a fact that when the right hon. Gentleman first set up the committee he expected a report very soon? When does he expect to receive it?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I never anticipated that written evidence amounting to 150,000 words would be submitted by the interested parties. A tremendous volume of written evidence has had to be considered, and that is being related to the oral evidence which is being given by the interested unions.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: When did these members of the committee who are abroad inform my right hon. Friend that they were going, and can he assure the House that when they return to this country they will not be sacked?

    Reservists (Pay)
    Mr. Kenneth Thompsonasked the Postmaster-General what steps he has taken to bring to the notice of his staff the decision of the Government to make up the pay and salaries of Post Office servants recalled to the Services for 15 days or longer.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: A notice on the subject is being issued in today's Post Office Circular.
    Mr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that very great inconvenience and some hardship are caused to members of his staff by the fact that this announcement has not been made up to now, and that many people employed by his Department have had their private arrangements considerably strained as a result of the delay in making the announcement?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have not had one complaint from any member of the staff in connection with this matter.
    Mr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that I have had many?

    Envelope 266
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Postmaster-General why a change has been made in Post Office envelope Type 266 to Type 266a when the latter is more

    2295
    expensive to produce, cannot be opened by machine, and requires considerable maintenance.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The new type of envelope was introduced to give more adequate security to the money order, postal order and pension order accounts sent from post offices to the Accounting Department. After withdrawal of the contents these envelopes are re-issued for use over and over again until they are worn out, and it is expected that the longer life of the new type of envelope will justify its higher cost.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the users consider this an unnecessary extravagance at this particular moment?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This matter has been under investigation by the Organisation and Methods Branch of my Department, and they came to the conclusion that this represents not only a saving but greater security.

    Air Mail (Carriage Rates)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Postmaster-General if he will publish a list of the rates paid to British and foreign air line operators for the carriage of mail.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer on 25th April.

  BROADCASTING (RECEPTION, CORNWALL)
  Mr. Haymanasked the Postmaster-General whether, until the modifications of the Start Point Station, planned to deal with night fading in Cornwall, are completed, he will direct the British Broadcasting Corporation to allocate for the Home Programme the wavelength of the Redruth Station, now radiating the Third Programme.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: It would not be desirable to follow my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am informed by the B.B.C. that radiation of the Home Programme from Redruth would interfere with the reception of the Third Programme by listeners to Plymouth, Exeter and other stations which use the same wavelength as Redruth.
  Mr. Hayman: Will my right hon. Friend consult the B.B.C. again, because
  2296
  this is a very narrow area and it was once said by the B.B.C. that they could not guarantee reception outside a radius of five miles.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I have been very concerned about reception in that part of the country, and I am satisfied that this is the best that can be done in the circumstances.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Over-Charging
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Postmaster-General whether he will introduce legislation to provide that when a telephone subscriber can show that he has been wrongly charged he shall not be liable to pay the overcharge.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It is a long-standing practice of the Post Office to adjust or waive any telephone charge if there is reasonable doubt as to its accuracy.
    Colonel Hutchison: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a case in Bow County Court and to the remarks of the judge who said, "It does not seem right," when told that a telephone subscriber could not legally refuse to pay for a call wrongly charged to him? Does he agree with the words of the learned judge?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The other facts not taken into consideration are that the defendant did not make a complaint for four months after he received the account and did not even offer a defence when the case was heard in court.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could he have had redress had he done this immediately?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: If he had made a complaint that he was being charged wrongly the matter would have been investigated. Unless we satisfied ourselves that the charge was reasonable it would have been waived.
    Colonel Hutchison: Does not that leave the position even more unsatisfactory? What kind of trade does the Minister think can be carried on when a man has to be charged for something which he did not legally have?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am obliged to apply the Regulations of 1936 which were not brought before this House by me.

    Capital Investment Programme
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Postmaster-General what effect the proposed reductions in the capital investment programme will have on the extension of the telephone and other services provided by his Department.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Post Office capital investment in 1951 and 1952 will be rather greater than last year, but increasing expenditure on defence works will probably involve a restriction of normal development.
    Sir I. Fraser: In any restriction, will the Minister bear in mind the very special needs of rural districts which are so much cut off from personal contact with each other?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am endeavouring to give as much preference as I can to rural districts and, in particular, to farmers, and I shall continue to do so.

  KOREA (AIRCRAFT LOSSES)
  Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Air what information he has as to the number of aircraft of the Communists and of the United Nations forces, respectively, which have been destroyed in, or as a result of, air combat in Korea, up to the latest convenient date.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Crawley): The latest official figures show that 248 aircraft of the United Nations forces in Korea have been destroyed from all causes, while 418 enemy aircraft have been destroyed and damaged.
  Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Can the Minister say how it is that such of these aircraft as have been destroyed in combat have been so destroyed in view of the statement of the Minister of Defence recently, in answer to my Question, that the Chinese Air Force did not operate?
  Mr. Crawley: I am afraid that I cannot give a full breakdown of the figures, but I think one interesting fact is that 118 M.I.G.15 have been destroyed or damaged as against six American Sabre aircraft.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Minister say exactly what is meant by "damaged"? Does it mean machines put out of action
  2298
  so as to be unlikely to be recovered, or exactly what does it mean?
  Mr. Crawley: I should say, normally put out of action either totally or for a very considerable period.
  Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Have any M.I.G.15 fallen on our side of the line so that we have had an opportunity of examining them?
  Mr. Crawley: I understand none.

  RUSSIAN JET AIRCRAFT
  Sir I. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Air if he has now received particulars of the Russian jet aircraft encountered by our forces in Korea; and if he will publish these particulars.
  Mr. Crawley: Further information about these aircraft has now been received, and the question of whether it could be published has been carefully considered. My right hon. and learned Friend has, however, come to the conclusion that it would not be in the public interest to do so.
  Sir I. Fraser: How will it be possible for British manufacturers to compete with these advances which have been made by other powers if they are not given the technical details?
  Mr. Crawley: I think it is possible to give responsible people in our manufacturing industry enough data to go on without publishing it world-wide.
  Sir I. Fraser: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will do that?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Flying Heights
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the minimum height at which aircraft are permitted to fly in the Weald of Kent area; what was the minimum height allowed in the recent Cooper Challenge Trophy Race in that area; and what was the lowest height recorded during the flying of that race in which Squadron Leader Lofts was killed when he crashed while flying in an eliminating heat.
    Mr. Crawley: For ordinary cross-country flights Royal Air Force aircraft are not permitted to fly below 2,000 ft. except in an emergency. However, part

    2299
    of the Weald of Kent lies within an area authorised for low flying training, where the minimum height is determined by the officer authorising the flight. The minimum height depends on the experience of the pilot, and in Fighter Command is normally 50 feet. The height limitation laid down for the Cooper Trophy Race was from 100 feet to 1,500 feet, and there is no evidence that these limits were exceeded.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Whilst we all deplore the tragedy which occurred during this race, and much as we appreciate the reason for holding these races and admire the men who take part in them, would it not be advisable in races of this nature in the future, where aircraft fly at such terrific speeds and at such low altitudes, to hold the turning points out to sea? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the aircraft in this incident narrowly missed a large village and a built-up area?
    Mr. Crawley: I expect the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that this race has been cancelled not only for this year but for all time in its present form. We are now reviewing the whole matter of how to hold races with jet aircraft.

    H.M.S. "Adastral" (Use)
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the future of H.M.R.A.F.S. "Adastral"; how long she has spent at Portsmouth Dockyard; how much has been spent on fitting her with equipment which has subsequently been removed; what was the cost of removing this equipment; and what proportion of her establishment of signal flags is in fact aboard her now.
    Mr. Crawley: As part of the general expansion of the Royal Air Force it has been decided to take the "Adastral" out of reserve and complete its conversion as a flying boat depôt ship. The vessel has been at Portsmouth since 6th September, 1948. At the time of the decision to place the ship in reserve, equipment which had cost £450 to fit was removed at a cost of £285. While out of commission the ship carries no signal flags.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the signal flags disappeared from the ship?
    Mr. Crawley: I am afraid not.

    Princess Flying Boats
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider lending or chartering the Princess flying boats, when completed, to commercial operating companies or corporations to help to carry the exceptionally heavy traffic at certain predictable times.
    Mr. Crawley: Yes, Sir. This is being considered.

    Transport Command (Aircraft)
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Air how much longer he plans to keep the Dakota aircraft in Transport Command in service; and what aircraft will be used to replace them.
    Mr. Crawley: The Dakota has already been replaced by the Valetta in Transport Command. Replacement has also been carried out in the Middle East Air Force and it is planned to complete replacement in the Far East by the end of this year.
    Brigadier Head: Does not the Under-Secretary consider that the present situation with regard to transport aircraft in the R.A.F. is thoroughly unsatisfactory and requires immediate steps to increase the number?
    Mr. Crawley: No, Sir.
    Brigadier Head rose—
    Mr. Speaker: This Question concerns one type of aircraft, not the whole situation.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Air what will be the standard aircraft for use by Transport Command when the current supply of Hastings is exhausted.
    Mr. Crawley: The replacement for the Hastings has not yet been settled, but it is likely to be a British made four-engined jet aircraft.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: If no replacement has yet been ordered, would it not be wise to carry on with the production of these useful aircraft until such time as replacement is available? If not, may we not be left in a difficult situation in connection with carrying our troops?
    Mr. Crawley: I think we have enough now and in prospect to carry on until we get replacements.
    Brigadier Head: In view of the fact that the Under-Secretary of State thinks we have enough now, is it not remarkable that the airborne brigade was recently sent to Cyprus in an aircraft carrier and not flown out there?

    Auxiliary Squadrons (Pilots)
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Air the average age of pilots in the Royal Air Force Auxiliary Squadrons.
    Mr. Crawley: The average age of pilots in the Auxiliary Fighter Squadrons is 28 years 10 months.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman say how long we shall have to wait before younger people from the National Service intake reach these auxiliary squadrons and what plans he has to bridge the gap which will exist until the young men are available?
    Mr. Crawley: Young men are in fact now going into the squadrons from National Service. Nine have already gone in and quite a large number have said that they wish to go in. I hope that the flow will be continuous from this month onwards.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Liverpool Airport (Catering)
    Mr. K. Thompsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation under what circumstances it has become necessary for his Department to undertake the complete refurnishing of the residential accommodation at Liverpool Airport, Speke; what is the cost; and what part of this cost is to be recovered from the catering contractors in each year of their three-year contract.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): The furniture previously used was owned by the last catering contractor, who removed it after his tender for the new contract was unsuccessful. The cost of refurnishing was £1,400, and contractors will hire the furniture at 12½ per cent. per annum of its capital cost.
    Mr. Thompson: Was it made clear in the form that was sent to the contractors in this case that they would be able to tender on the basis of the Ministry being responsible for furnishing the premises?
    Mr. Beswick: I understand that is so.
    Mr. K. Thompsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if it is with his knowledge and approval that higher prices than previously ruling are being charged for meals and refreshments served at Liverpool Airport, Speke, by new catering contractors appointed by his Department.
    Mr. Beswick: Yes, Sir, but I am satisfied that the present prices are fair for the meals and refreshments provided.
    Mr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that it is always competent for a contractor to tender at a higher price if he is satisfied that he will be permitted to charge higher prices for the commodities supplied to the public? Will the Minister say how the policy of allowing this to happen fits in with the general policy of the Government to reduce prices to the public, when they themselves are responsible for thus increasing prices to the public?
    Mr. Beswick: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. This applies equally to all tenderers.

    Aircrew (Medical Research)
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how far scientific observations are made on aircrews of passenger-carrying aircraft; and to what extent research is being undertaken for the advancement of knowledge in aviation medicine.
    Mr. Beswick: Commercial pilots undergo a thorough medical examination twice a year but are not subjected to routine scientific observation unless a specific research project is undertaken. The Flying Personnel Research Committee sponsors continuous research into all matters affecting flying personnel and in 1949 investigations into fatigue in civilian aircrew were made on behalf of that committee.
    Dr. Broughton: While welcoming the information, which shows that the

    2303
    Ministry of Civil Aviation have not overlooked this subject, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that the aircrew of passenger-carrying aircraft, with many years flying experience to their credit, may provide valuable data for the study of fatigue and other possible effects of long-term flying?
    Mr. Beswick: I quite agree that it ought to be possible to do something more to study the effects of prolonged flying, and I am having the subject investigated.

    Dutch Aircraft (Diversion)
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why a K.L.M. plane, carrying 24 American students from the United States of America, was not allowed to land at Prestwick recently and had, thereupon, to proceed to Holland.
    Mr. Beswick: The aircraft was allowed to land, but in the absence of inter-governmental arrangements relating to commercial non-scheduled international flights an operator normally requires prior permission before taking up or setting down such traffic at airports abroad. At the time of this flight no such arrangement existed between the Netherlands Government and ourselves, and no prior permission had been sought.
    The Netherlands Government have since completed arrangements with His Majesty's Government to provide for such flights, thus obviating similar difficulties in future.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is it not the case that the K.L.M. aircraft took off from America expecting to land at Prestwick, and is it not the case that a little more flexibility and a little less red tape would have avoided causing annoyance to foreign visitors?
    Mr. Beswick: It is the case that operators should take the simple precautions they are expected to take.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the present state of the world, would it not have been much more sensible to have allowed these students to land and argued it out afterwards?
    Mr. Beswick: No, Sir. There is an arrangement that non-scheduled operators should not bring passengers into this
    2304
    country unless they have obtained prior agreement, and if we are to have such arrangements, quite clearly they cannot be broken.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what steps he intends to take to inform operators in the United States of the rather terse advice he has just given?
    Mr. Beswick: The operators already know of this advice.

    Prestwick (Buildings and Factories)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what rent is paid by Scottish Aviation Limited for government buildings and factories occupied by them at Prestwick Airport.
    Mr. Beswick: The rent for the main Crown buildings and factory premises was fixed at £20,000 a year for the three years ended July, 1949, since when some buildings have been vacated. No rent has been paid under the agreement or since and similarly compensation rental for the aerodrome due by the State to the company has been withheld. A net settlement will be negotiated after the arbitration proceedings arising out of the compulsory purchase order. The company also occupies the airport hotel, but the payment for this is not expressed in terms of rent.
    Mr. Rankin: Could my hon. Friend say to what extent, other than those mentioned, Scottish Aviation Limited are conducting business and other enterprises at the airport?
    Mr. Beswick: As far as I know, there are no other enterprises at the airport which have a claim upon the Government. This seems to me a natural and normal arrangement to save accountancy between the two parties.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the Government have not the enterprises at Prestwick which they promised many years ago?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is it not the fact that this property still belongs to Scottish Aviation Limited, while its acquisition by the Government is still sub judice and under arbitration?
    Mr. Beswick: A good deal of the property belongs to the Government who erected the property there in the first place. Some of it belongs to Scottish Aviation, and there is, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, a decision now that the State should take it over entirely.

    International Organisation (Secretary-General)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what instructions have been given to the British representative on International Civil Aviation Organisation in regard to the immediate appointing of a successor to Dr. Roper, if need be, by temporarily appointing the Deputy Secretary-General until such time as the Council has made the new permanent appointment.
    Mr. Beswick: As I informed my hon. Friend on 27th June, the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation has not yet chosen a successor, and the Secretary-General has agreed to remain for the time being. The post of Deputy Secretary-General was abolished at the end of 1950.
    Mr. Cooper: Has my hon. Friend received from the British representative any evidence based on the Council's minutes indicating the real reason for the decision to dispense with the services of Dr. Roper? Does he intend therefore to give instructions at the request of the British representative that his services should be terminated immediately in view of the evidence my hon. Friend has of the need to improve the efficiency and the staff morale of the International Organisation?
    Mr. Beswick: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend means by "evidence" from reports. We have reports in the normal way from our representative, from which reports I have compiled this answer.
    Mr. Cooper: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary-General should continue, in view of the evidence he has received?
    Mr. Beswick: Yes, Sir, for the time being, until a successor is appointed.

    Shoreham—Deauville Service
    Mr. John Grimstonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on what date an application was made by a subsidiary company of the Railway Executive to operate a service from Shoreham to Deauville as an associate of British European Airways Corporation; on what date the associate-ship was granted; and on what date the company informed his Department of its decision not to operate the service.
    Mr. Beswick: An application was made to the Air Transport Advisory Council by 011ey Air Services, Limited, on 30th October, 1950. After clearance with the French Government, the company were informed on 24th February, 1951, that my noble Friend had granted provisional approval, but on 18th May the company informed the Council that they had decided not to operate the service.
    Mr. George Ward: Can the hon. Gentleman say what Section of the Transport Act it is which empowers the Railway Executive to operate an air service at all?
    Mr. Beswick: I am not answering a Question about that. I am answering a Question about Olley Air Services.
    Mr. J. Grimstonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on what date an application was made by Island Air Services (London), Limited, to operate a service from Shoreham to Deauville as an associate of British European Airways Corporation; on what date and on what grounds permission was refused; what the circumstances were which led to a reversal of this decision and an invitation to the company to operate the service; and when this invitation was made.
    Mr. Beswick: The application was made to the Air Transport Advisory Council on 8th October, 1950. It was rejected on 8th December by my
    noble Friend on the recommendation of the Council. Subsequently Olley Air Services, whose application had been approved, withdrew, and Island Air Services were informed on 29th May, 1951, that the Minister was prepared to accept their application.
    Mr. Grimston: Is it not sensible and fair, where a company has successfully

    2307
    operated a 100 per cent. service without subsidies, from the Government, to allow the agreement to be extended?
    Mr. Beswick: If there are two applications the Council takes everything into consideration, which it did, and on this occasion it recommended that the application of the second company should be accepted.
    Mr. G. Ward: Should there not be some appeal tribunal to which people can go if applications are turned down without any reason being given?
    Mr. Beswick: The original idea was that this Advisory Council should be independent, and, in a sense, an appeal tribunal. It would, of course, have been possible to have had the initial applications made to the Minister.
    Mr. Grimston: Surely if an associate agreement arrangement is made and a company has made a success of the service it should be allowed to carry on?
    Mr. Beswick: Other things being equal, I agree; but there was a good deal of evidence before the Air Transport Advisory Council, and it came to the conclusion that a more successful service to the public was more likely to be offered by the company whose application it recommended.
    Mr. Grimston: Will the hon. Gentleman say what successful service is better than 100 per cent.?
    Mr. Beswick: A 100 per cent. service that is not improperly marred by other things. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will the evidence to which the hon. Gentleman has referred before the Air Transport Advisory Council be published?
    Mr. Beswick: No, Sir, it is not the usual practice to publish the detailed evidence. I think it would be unfair. Since the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) seems to think my previous reply so funny—
    Hon. Members: We all do.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Give the children a chance.
    Mr. Manuel: Let them put up their hands.
    Mr. Beswick: —I will explain to him that there are, of course, factors on the ground which affect the operation of the company, as well as the services which the company may operate 100 per cent. efficiently in the air.

    Customs Officers (Diversion Airfields)
    Mr. J. Grimstonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what arrangements he has made with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for the transfer of Customs officers from London Airport or Northolt, respectively, to diversion airfields whenever a large number of passengers are expected due to the main airports being closed on account of bad weather.
    Mr. Beswick: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 3rd July to the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper) by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
    Mr. Grimston: Will the hon. Gentleman try to see whether delays such as occur in places like this cannot be overcome by moving the Customs officers more freely?
    Mr. Beswick: Responsibility for moving the Customs offices is, of course, that of the Treasury, but if the hon. Gentleman has any particular ground for complaint and will give me the details of it I will have it looked into.
    Mr. G. Ward: Is not the real answer to take the advice of the Opposition and instal F.I.D.O. at Heathrow?

  JAPAN (PEACE TREATY)
  Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made towards the completion of a peace treaty with Japan; and when completion and publication may be expected.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): As a result of Mr. Dulles' recent visit, full agreement was reached on the main provisions of a draft treaty subject to the approval of His Majesty's and the United States Governments. The draft is now being communicated to other Governments, and I anticipate that the text will

  2309
  be published shortly by agreement, when these Governments have had an opportunity to consider it.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware of the discussions that have taken place upon this proposed draft in the United States, and that a time-table has been agreed upon, and that if that timetable is operated it will mean that the Treaty will be endorsed before this House has an opportunity of considering it? Will he take the initiative in preventing that time-table from operating until the House has had an opportunity of considering it?
  Mr. Davies: The question of a debate relating to the Japanese Peace Treaty is, of course, a matter for the Leader of the House, but an undertaking has already been given that an opportunity will he provided for such a debate.
  Mr. Fort: Before the hon. Gentleman puts the draft Treaty before the House, will he undertake to consult the textiles industries of this country, which are vitally concerned with any treaty with Japan?
  Mr. Davies: The Treaty is already in draft, and it is shortly to be published, and I hope that it will be seen that the various persons interested have been adequately consulted.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: In view of the shortness of the time before the Recess, may I put it to the Government, through the hon. Gentleman, that it would be convenient if time could be found for the debate before the House rises, if this publication is to be made?
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can we take it from my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) that the Government are fully satisfied that the interests of Lancashire are protected in the Treaty?
  Mr. Davies: I would suggest that my hon. Friend awaits the publication of the Treaty, and then he will see.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the draft Treaty does in fact contain provisions designed to protect the cotton trade of this country, and the pottery trade and other trades, from unfair methods of competition?
  Mr. Davies: I would suggest that hon. Members await the publication of the text, because we cannot enter into discussions on the text until it is published, and it can be published only by agreement with the United States Government, because it is a joint draft.
  Mr. Edward Davies: Does that mean that the House will have an opportunity of considering the matter before we are finally committed? That is the point.
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Yes.

  STRATEGIC EXPORTS, JAPAN
  Mr. Edward Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether similar restrictions on exports of strategic commodities to China, imposed by this country, are at present operating on exports from Japan.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Edward Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great apprehension that we have imposed restrictions upon the traffic from Hong Kong and that similar restrictions have not been imposed upon traffic from Japan, and that, in fact, great quantities of strategic materials have been passing from Japan, and even at the same time as we were discussing the matter in this House?
  Mr. Davies: No, Sir, the Japanese Government have prohibited since 6th December, 1950, a large range of goods from export to China, and I am satisfied that Japan is imposing restrictions which are equally as strict as those which are imposed by Britain.

  BALTIC STATES (BRITISH CLAIMS)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement as to the use of assets of the former Baltic States now held by the Custodian for the satisfaction of claims by British creditors of those States.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: No, Sir. I am afraid that there is nothing I can usefully say on this question at present.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the Under-Secretary recall that over two years ago the late Foreign Secretary said that this matter was under consideration; and, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government have, through the Custodian, substantial assets from these States in their control, why cannot those assets be used, at any rate in part satisfaction of these people who have been waiting for many years?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will, I think, appreciate that this is a question of great complexity which raises difficult legal and political issues. For instance, we have never given de jure recognition to Russia's annexation of the Baltic States.

  HUNGARY (MR. EDGAR SANDERS)
  Captain Waterhouseasked the Secretary of State for Foreion Affairs if he has any further news of fate or whereabouts of Mr. Sanders; and when the last communication on this subject was sent to the Hungarian Government.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I regret that there is no further news of Mr. Sanders. On 18th June His Majesty's Minister at Budapest again reaffirmed to the Hungarian Government our offer to resume economic negotiations and facilitate, a visit by two Hungarian representatives to the British zone of Germany to take delivery of restitution goods identifiable as Hungarian as soon as Mr. Sanders was released. But the Hungarian Government has not yet accepted this offer.
  Captain Waterhouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I put a Question on this point to him some months ago he gave me an assurance that our communications with the Hungarian Government would be limited to the merest diplomatic formalities as long as Mr. Sanders was missing; and is he further aware that an invitation was sent to the Hungarian Minister and his wife to attend the service at St. Paul's Cathedral to inaugurate the Festival of Britain?
  Mr. Davies: Such invitations are formal matters of diplomatic courtesy. They are sent to all diplomats, and it would be quite unusual if there were selection of those to be invited.
  Sir Herbert Williams: What about Mr. Sanders?
  Captain Waterhouse: Is this not an exceptional circumstance? Here is a British subject who has disappeared. An American subject who disappeared has been released; ours has not, yet we ask these people to come and take part in these public ceremonies.
  Mr. Davies: As long as we have diplomatic recognition of the Hungarian Government they are treated as diplomats here in London. I do not think that the issuing or withholding of tickets for these ceremonies would affect the question of Mr. Sanders.
  Captain Waterhouse: In view of the very unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  KOREA

    Cease-Fire Proposal
    Mr. John Hyndasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has now been drawn to the statements by representatives of the South Korean Government indicating an intention to ignore any cease-fire agreement; and what steps he is taking.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Yes, Sir, I have seen these irresponsible statements. Appropriate steps are being taken through the diplomatic channel.

    Atrocity Allegations
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the regular reports promised from the United Nations Commission in Korea in respect of alleged atrocities have not yet been made available; and what conclusions the Commission reached in respect of those allegations.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: No such reports had been promised. It has since become clear that these questions are outside the competence of the Commission.
    Mr. Sorensen: is my hon. Friend aware that last December we were informed in this House that these reports would be made public; and, in view of the fact that the promise was made on that occasion that the reports were expected and

    2313
    would be made public, can we be told why these reports are not being made public?
    Mr. Davies: At that time the Commission had only just arrived in Korea, and had not then been in a position to assess its responsibilities. It was decided that its responsibilities were limited to relief and rehabilitation in Korea.
    Mr. Sorensen: In view of the promise made on this very important matter, could not something be done now in order to find out the nature of those reports? I would also draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that the last part of my Question has not been answered at all.
    Mr. Davies: The reply I gave on 4th December was that I hoped that regular reports from the Commission would be available shortly. We thought at that time that their responsibilities would include this matter, but subsequently the United Nations' Commission decided that this was outside their competence.
    Mr. Paget: Can we take it that if the present negotiations go through neither side will have been defeated, and that therefore defeat, which is a condition precedent of war criminality, will not arise?
    Mr. Donnelly: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable disquiet on this side of the House about some of the reports we have been receiving through the newspapers; and is he further aware that we would very much welcome some more positive action on the part of His Majesty's Government to clear up some of these rumours?
    Mr. Davies: His Majesty's Government have made it quite clear from the beginning that we absolutely deplore atrocities on either side, and that everything within our power is done to investigate any cases which are brought to our attention, but at the present time we are not aware that any atrocities are being committed.
    Mr. Sorensen: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    RE-ARMAMENT (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Minister of Defence at Belle Vue, Manchester, on 1st July, to the effect that at the slightest sign His Majesty's Government would be only too willing to curtail re-armament, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): His Majesty's Government have consistently sought the co-operation of other countries to a policy of reducing armaments. When these countries show genuine evidence of willingness to be associated with us, we for our part will be very willing to reconsider the size of our defence forces. Meantime—
    Mr. Churchill—
    The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman might wait until I have concluded my reply.
    Mr. Churchill: On a point of order. We cannot hear a word. Mr. Speaker, might I ask you to intercede with the Prime Minister to read this statement a little less rapidly and a little more plainly?
    The Prime Minister: I will read the answer again.
    His Majesty's Government have consistently sought the co-operation of other countries to a policy of reducing armaments. When these countries show genuine evidence of willingness to be associated with us, we for our part will be very willing to reconsider the size of our defence forces. Meantime we have no intention of relaxing our efforts to strengthen our defences.
    Mr. Blackburn—
    Mr. Churchill: Was it at all necessary for the Minister of Defence, who is by way of animating the general effort and sacrifice required from this country demanded by the Government, to make a statement of this character at this moment; and does the Prime Minister associate himself with that statement or not?
    The Prime Minister: It is, of course, very easy to pull a phrase or two from a speech. My right hon. Friend was explaining the necessity for our defences,

    2315
    and for increasing the defences of the freedom loving nations. It is perfectly relevant to suggest to people that our whole end is peace and that we do not want to spend all our efforts in piling up armaments. I would say that, when there is a genuine acceptance of the need for peace and genuine co-operation by others, we shall certainly join in. I think that it was a perfectly reasonable and sensible thing to say.
    Mr. Churchill: The actual words that the Prime Minister has to deal with are:
    "at the slightest sign His Majesty's Government would be only too willing."
    Mr. Henry Strauss: Only "too" willing.
    Mr. Churchill: What precautions are taken to make sure that this slight sign, if any, that is given is not a means of deceiving the Allies?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any danger of that. Of course, it is easy to be meticulous about phrases. I could be meticulous about other people's phrases. The general tenor of my right hon. Friend's remarks is perfectly clear.
    Mr. Blackburn—
    Mr. Churchill—
    Mr. Speaker: I think it is time that the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn), who asked the Question, was allowed to put a supplementary.
    Mr. Blackburn: Is it still the Government's policy that re-armament is urgent and essential, and is a pre-condition of peace; is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not the only statement which has been made, either by the Minister of Defence or by other Ministers. which has conflicted with the policy the Prime Minister himself and the Foreign Secretary are constantly putting forward; and will the Prime Minister see that Ministers of the Crown do not, at this delicate stage of international affairs, make statements on foreign policy which conflict with his own policy?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that the policy of the Government is perfectly clear.
    Sir H. Williams: Except at the weekend.
    The Prime Minister: It has been fully expressed, and was expressed in this speech. It really is doing an ill-service by taking one phrase from a considerable speech to try to impugn the motives of a Minister.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister realise that there is a growing feeling in this country that rearmament is a racket, and that the only people who have any reason to grumble about this speech are the racketeers in re-armament?
    Lord John Hope: The fact remains that equivocal statements have been made in widely reported circles, and in view of that will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of urging a joint declaration now, by himself and the President of the United States, that nothing will be allowed to deflect the two peoples from their declared joint purpose of peace through strength?
    The Prime Minister: The statements made by the President and myself are perfectly clear on that point. We want strength, but we also want peace.
    Mr. Churchill: Does the Prime Minister not consider that this particular statement which has been made is likely to weaken the efforts which are being made at his request, and the request of His Majesty's Government, throughout the country, by people of all parties to sustain and develop the defences of the country; and does he not think he would be better employing his power and authority to get some discipline and order among his principal Ministers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—than in flinging across the House insulting insinuations that the party on this side of the House is not as devoted to peace as he is?
    The Prime Minister: I have flung no insinuations across the House. I do not think that anyone thinks so but the right hon. Gentleman. I flung no insinuations. I was pointing out, and I thought the right hon. Gentleman agreed, that we are increasing our defences for the purpose of preserving peace. I think that a statement of this kind is quite useful, because there are people who think that because we are piling up defences we are solely interested in piling up defences to make war. It is just as well to counter that kind of propaganda.

    2317
    I was not suggesting that it came from the party opposite. I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Members knew that there was a bogus peace campaign being carried on by the Communists, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not realise that. They seem to think that anything that is said is directed against them. It is just as well to point out that the earnest desire. I believe, of everyone in this country is for peace through strength. It is equally wise to point out that, as soon as we can get that position of strength and as soon as that threat is removed we shall all be very glad to turn all our energies to building up the peace of this country.
    Mr. Blackburn: On a point of order. In view of the evasive nature of the reply —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment?
    Mr. Speaker: I have laid it down several times that hon. Members must not make imputations when announcing that they want to raise a matter on the Adjournment. One must only say, "Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment."
    Mr. Blackburn: I beg to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    ROYAL COMMISSION (MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE)
    Mr. Blackasked the Prime Minister whether a decision has yet been reached as to the composition and terms of reference of the Royal Commission to consider the marriage laws.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Prime Minister whether the Royal Commission to investigate the marriage laws has now been appointed.
    The Prime Minister: The composition and terms of reference of the proposed Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce have not yet been finally decided, but I hope to be in a position to announce them shortly.

    SERVICE PENSIONS AND RETIRED PAY
    Mr. Heathcoat Amoryasked the Minister of Defence whether, during the revision of Service pensions which he is now carrying out, he will ensure that any improvements made will apply to existing pensioners.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 24th April by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble). Although my right hon. Friend
    was not referring specifically to Service pensions. the principle is the same.
    Mr. Amory: As the right hon. Gentleman is not able to commit himself, now, will he, nevertheless, store away this point in his mind and do the right thing when the time comes?
    Mr. Shinwell: We are only anxious to be sympathetic in this matter. It is a very complicated business.
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Defence when he expects to he able to make an announcement on Service pensions.
    Mr. Shinwell: I will make an announcement on this subject as soon as a decision has been reached.
    Mr. Crouch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he made a similar statement some 10 weeks ago there has been a great rise in the cost of living and a further fall in the value of the £ and that these people are finding it increasingly difficult to make both ends meet? Does he consider 10 weeks is a short period, because I consider it a very long period in this very important matter?
    Mr. Shinwell: I will not quarrel with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the effect on these people. We have done everything that we possibly can to reach a decision. I hope to be able to do so very shortly.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will the right hon. Gentleman's announcement cover those who took part in the battle of the docks?
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Minister of Defence whether he is

    2319
    aware that the rates of retired pay of naval, military and air force officers, who retired under the provisions of the Royal Warrant and corresponding instruments of 1919, in no case exceed, and in many cases are less than, the rates of 1919, in spite of the great rise since then in the cost of living; and whether, in view of the fact that the Royal Warrant in question authorised the raising or the lowering of the rates according as the cost of living should rise or fall, he will now cause all such rates to be raised accordingly.
    Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statements made on behalf of the Government in the debate on the Adjournment of the House on 26th May, 1950. I am unable at present to add to those statements.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of any other class or body of persons, wage earners or salary earners, who are now getting less than the rates of 1919—
    Mr. Hamilton: What about the retired private?
    Sir G. Jeffreys: —and will he urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the person really responsible, that it is quite time the claims of these officers should be attended to and the terms of the Royal Warrant put into force?
    Mr. Shinwell: This matter has been debated in the House more than once.
    Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that prices today are below what they were in 1919?
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us have been pressing for consideration of the case of these men, many of whom are suffering considerable hardship, over the last five years, and will he give fair consideration to it despite the hatred of his side of the House for those who fought for their country?
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Shinwell: The noble Lord has in my hearing several times pressed past Conservative Governments without achieving any success.
    Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. In view of the fact that many of us fought in the last war, and lost relatives in it, is it not right that the noble Lord should
    2320
    now withdraw that disgusting remark which he made?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. It is a matter for the noble Lord.
    Earl Winterton: May I say that I should not have made the observation that I did but for the fact that when my hon. and gallant Friend asked a question which he was entitled to ask about this hardship some hon. Member below the Gangway had the scandalous impertinence to shout "What about the privates?" as if officers did not matter?
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: We are obviously in a heated state. We had better get on with the next business.

STERLING AREA (GOLD AND DOLLAR RESERVES)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the gold and dollar position of the sterling area.
During the second quarter of 1951 the gold and dollar surplus of the sterling area amounted to 54 million dollars compared with a surplus of 360 million dollars in the first quarter of 1951 and of 398 million dollars in the fourth quarter of 1950. Receipts under the European Recovery Programme in respect of allotments made before the end of 1950, amounted to 55 million dollars compared with 98 million dollars in the first quarter and 145 million dollars in the fourth quarter of 1950. The gold and dollar reserves rose during the second quarter by 109 million dollars and amounted to 3,867 million dollars on 30th June, compared with 3,758 million dollars on 31st March and 3,300 million dollars on 31st December, 1950.
Three factors are mainly responsible for the decline in the surplus in the second quarter. The first is an increase in expenditure on imports from the dollar area, both by the United Kingdom and by countries in the rest of the sterling area. The second is a decline in earnings from exports from the rest of the sterling area to the dollar area, which is in part seasonal. Against this, but only partly offsetting it, United Kingdom exports to the dollar area have shown a welcome increase.

2321
The third factor is a reduction in net receipts of gold and dollars from non-dollar countries, particularly from the European Payments Union. In the second quarter, receipts from the E.P.U. in settlement of the United Kingdom's surplus, amounted to only 17 million dollars compared with 76 million dollars in the first quarter. It is quite likely that these less favourable influences will continue during the next few months.
R. A. Butler: In view of the sober statement that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, can he give the House any further information about the increase in our exports to the dollar area? Further, with reference to the very serious sentence with which he concluded his statement, namely:
"It is quite likely that these less favourable influences will continue during the next few months,"
can the Chancellor indicate in any way any change or different conception of Government policy, which he may have in his mind at present, which has partly affected certain of the three considerations which he gave?
Mr. Gaitskell: The figures of dollar exports are published in the ordinary way every month. There is nothing that I can now usefully add to these figures. As regards the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we cannot, of course, and could not expect our dollar surplus to continue indefinitely at the same high level at which it had been running before. I did warn the House, on the last occasion I made such a statement, that it was not likely to continue. So far as policy is concerned, it would not, in my view, be wise in present circumstances, for example, to cut down on essential dollar imports of materials for stockpiling and other purposes because the surplus this quarter has been very much smaller than it was last quarter.
Mr. S. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend say how long it will be, if the present trend of prices continues, before the surplus becomes a deficit? Would my right hon. Friend further confirm that the change in our fortunes in this respect is the direct result of the accelerated scramble for raw materials all over the world due to the increased armaments programme started last September? Does
2322
not all this confirm the wisdom of the speech made by the Minister of Defence in saying that we should welcome the first—
Mr. Speaker: We cannot go back to that question now. We have finished with it.
Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. The decline in the sterling area receipts of dollars on account of the fall in the price of some of the sterling area materials is obviously no indication of an uncontrolled scramble for raw materials.
Mr. Clement Davies: With reference to the last sentence in the Chancellor's statement, surely he has made a closer estimate of what is to happen. Cannot he give the House and the country more definite information of what the estimate for the next quarter is likely to be?
Mr. Gaitskell: There are so many uncertain factors that it is extremely difficult to give a precise estimate. I should prefer to rest on what I have already said. I am trying to be as fair and direct with the House as I can be. I think that these unfavourable tendencies will continue, but exactly how next quarter's figures will turn out it is not possible to say at present.
Sir H. Williams: Would it not be better if in future we abandoned the Economic Survey, which is a rather bad edition of "Old Moore's Almanac" and have a monthly statement? Then we should not be led astray.
Mr. Gaitskell: I could not agree that hon. Members are led astray.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the Chancellor give an assurance that nothing that he has said today means that we shall not be able to honour our commitments under Bretton Woods and the Anglo-American Financial Agreement of 1946?
Mr. Gaitskell Mr. Gaitskell indicated assent.
Mr. Edelman: As the terms of trade have changed since devaluation, and as Britain is not getting a fair value for her export of manufactures, will the Chancellor now consider revaluing the £?
Sir W. Smithers: Is it not obvious that the real reason for the Chancellor's statement is that the £ was devalued, and that its devaluation was proof that the philosophy of Socialism had ruined British credit?
Mr. Shepherd: As a good deal of this change arose from the changed trade relations with countries in the sterling area outside the United Kingdom, is the Chancellor contemplating any conversations with those countries to see if they can do anything to assist us?
Mr. Gaitskell: We have, in the last few years, had conferences of sterling area Commonwealth Finance Ministers, and though no precise arrangements have yet been made for another conference, I think it is quite likely that in the course of the next few months some such gathering may take place.
Mr. S. Silverman: Are we to gather from what my right hon. Friend said in answer to my supplementary question that, speaking with all the authority and responsibility that attaches to his office, he is inviting the House to believe that the change in our circumstances is not mainly occasioned by the consequences of the re-armament programme here and elsewhere?
Mr. Gaitskell: I would not say that it was occasioned by a world scramble for raw materials. It is due to three factors, one of which is the increased imports of
2324
dollar materials and other commodities by the United Kingdom and the rest of the sterling area. One can say that to the extent that we pay higher prices for them that is part of the general world inflationary position. The second factor is the decline in dollar receipts from sales from the rest of the sterling area occasioned by a fall in the prices of certain sterling area raw materials.
Mr. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend now please answer the question I did ask him?
Mr. Donnelly: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any idea, in view of the continuing fall in this surplus, how long we can sustain a re-armament programme such as we are carrying at the moment?
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any possibility, or any intention, of His Majesty's Government approaching the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and inquiring into the possibility of some effective economic co-operation as a necessary corollary to military co-operation?
Mr. Gaitskell: I would remind my hon. Friend that there already exists a very great measure of economic co-operation, for example, in the International Materials Conference, and in the recent setting up of the Finance and Economic Board of the N.A.T.O. powers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND (GIFTS OF MACE AND SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  3.42 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a Mace to the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia and a Speaker's Chair to the House of Representatives of New Zealand, and assuring His Majesty that this House will make good the expense attending the same.
  We are speaking in this House surrounded by gifts from other parts of the Commonwealth which are tributes of affection. It was discovered when the Australian Speaker was over here that the original Mace of the Australian Parliament was missing. It was also discovered that there was need for a new Chair in New Zealand.
  It was thought that it would be a good act on the part of this Parliament that we should present a Mace to Australia and a Speaker's Chair to New Zealand on the occasion of the anniversaries which they are celebrating. On 6th April, in answer to a Question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations stated that it was proposed that this should be done. I think it met with the general approval of the House.
  Since then the Mace has been put in hand and is being made. The design follows generally that of the Mace of the House of Commons, but its decoration is Australian and it bears the Commonwealth coat of arms. The Chair is being constructed, a simple high-backed chair, to stand on the existing dais. It is not a replica of our Chair here. It is very like the Chair that was presented to Ceylon.
  The Motion proposes that this presentation be made on behalf of the House of Commons. If, as I hope, the Committee accepts the Motion, the Committee will pledge itself to honour the necessary Estimate, which I think will be something under £2,000. The actual arrangements for presenting these gifts
  2326
  will be a matter for Mr. Speaker, but I should hope that, following the usual practice, these gifts might be presented by a small Parliamentary delegation which might go out to Australia and New Zealand at the end of the year, and that a Motion for that purpose might be brought forward later.
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill (Woodford): We are very glad on this side of the Committee to support the Motion which the Prime Minister has moved. On 6th April my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) asked a Question, no doubt by arrangement through the usual channels, to which an answer was given forecasting the procedure the consequences of which we have now before us. We are therefore entirely in favour of these gifts being made from the mother of Parliaments to the daughter States as they were, sister States as they are—I am not quite sure how these family arrangements are conceived of on the other side of the globe —who carry forward so much of our traditions and life and on whom we rely not only to strengthen us in the years to come but to carry our message on to future ages that we shall not perhaps see, in proportionately as powerful a position as we occupy at the present time.
  I was a little concerned, because I have not had much acquaintance with the details of this matter, to hear about the loss of the Mace in Australia. Apparently someone had taken away "that bauble." I earnestly trust that no such misadventure will occur here. If it were to, I am sure that we could rely on the spontaneous generosity of our kith and kin beyond the oceans to help us to do our best to restore the loss.
  As for New Zealand, the gift of a Speaker's Chair seems to be in every way appropriate, especially as we have heard that at the present time only an ordinary piece of furniture is available for the highly important and dignified ceremonial purposes which should always attend the Chair in which the Speaker of any House of Parliament sits. We are, therefore, on broad and high ground and on more practical grounds, quite ready to give to the Prime Minister our full support in this Motion. I am sure that our united forces will enable us to bear down all opposition that may be forthcoming.
  3.48 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I wish also to join with the two right hon. Gentlemen in commending this Motion to the Committee. There is such a close relationship of affection between this country and what are now our sister nations that we welcome this Motion as a further opportunity that is given us to return to them in some measure our thanks for their generosity to us.
  It will be remembered that last year their Speakers were welcomed here in joining with us in rejoicing at the restoration of this ancient Chamber, which itself is a symbol of the triumph of democracy over dictatorship and of freedom over tyranny. They also made presentations to us. In this Chamber they presented the Chair and they presented the two Dispatch Boxes.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) that a Chair and a Mace are something far more than a mere chair and a mace. Round that Chair, which is the centre of this House, revolve the activities, the actions and the business of the whole House and at all times we pay due deference to it and make obeisance to it and its honoured occupant. The Mace is a symbol of authority, and when it is upon the Table we recognise that we are in Session and in Parliament assembled with the great honour of carrying on the business of the people of this country.
  This Parliament is regarded by our sister nations not only as the Mother of Parliaments but really as belonging as much to them as it does to us, and it is right that we should send them these symbols which mean so much to us. In doing so we wish them every happiness, prosperity and success in all their activities.
  3.51 p.m.
  Earl Winterton (Horsham): In the tranquillity of the temporary calm which we are having in this assembly, I am reminded of travelling to South Africa on a boat. One is lashed for three days by Atlantic storms and then suddenly one comes into the doldrums. Perhaps that is rather an unfortunate metaphor; it would be better to say that one suddenly comes into the calm surrounding the Tropic of Capricorn.
  2328
  I want to say a word or two in a dual capacity, as Father of the House of Commons and also as the Chairman of the Select Committee on the rebuilding of this House. I think it is appropriate that the Father of the House of Commons should assert his long-accustomed right to speak on these occasions.
  Speaking as Chairman of the Select Committee, I feel that it is not inappropriate once again to recall to the attention of the House not only the magnificence but the number of the gifts which we received on the occasion of the re-opening of the Chamber. All of us,
  including the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. were strictly enjoined by Mr. Speaker not to speak for more than five minutes on that occasion, so that it was not possible then to enlarge on the subject; but it should be known that we received 60 gifts, including the two doors, the Table, the Boxes, and Mr. Speaker's Chair, and we did so with a deep feeling of gratitude towards our sister Legislatures in the other parts of the Commonwealth.
  It is most appropriate that these gifts should be made, and I hope it will not be the last of such gifts made, when occasion arises, by the Mother of Parliaments to the other legislative assemblies in the Empire.
  3.53 p.m.
  Mr. Baker White: I should like, from the back benches, to support the Motion. I want to put forward a suggestion. When the Dominions and the Commonwealth made their gifts to furnish and beautify the Chamber, they were most careful in selecting woods native to their own countries. I do not know who is fashioning the Chair, but I suggest that, if it is possible, we should incorporate in it the following four woods: English oak, for it was English oak which carried the first British people to New Zealand; Welsh yew, from which Welshmen used to make their bows; good Scotch fir and good beech from Ulster, so that on our part we carry back the same symbol as they brought to this Chamber.
  It has been mentioned that the Chair and the Mace are symbols. There are all too many countries in the world now where the symbols of authority are the sub-machine gun and barbed wire, with

  2329
  good democrats behind the wire. The symbols which we are sending show that we still preserve our way of life.
  The Prime Minister: I should like to inform the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) that full consultation took place with New Zealand as to the kind of wood they desired.
  Question put, and agreed 'to.
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  TELEPHONE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  TELEPHONE BILL

    Clause 1.—(POWER OF POSTMASTER-GENERAL TO REGULATE USE OF THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM, &c.)
    3.56 p.m.
    Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out from "him" to "will," in line 9.
    The words I propose to leave out are:
    "…(whether through the medium of the public telephone system under his control or otherwise)…"
    I put down the Amendment mainly because I did not know what those words meant, but I have since had it represented to me that their primary purpose is to do something rude to the city of Hull. I am suspicious about these words. Maybe one of the hon. Members representing Hull will speak, but do not understand the Clause when it says:
    "The Postmaster-General may, with the consent of the Treasury, make regulations for—"
    this, that or the other, followed by the words which I seek to delete. I want to know what "or otherwise" means. The Postmaster-General must have had some purpose in putting in those words, if he did put them in. Perhaps he did not put them in. We know what happens with Bills. The Minister determines that there is to be a Bill and then the drafting is left to certain other gentlemen, and no doubt those are the gentlemen who will have provided the brief which the Postmaster-General will read in response to my Amendment.
    I was once a junior Minister for a short time and I have had some experience of
    2330
    how these things are done. It is sometimes amazing how little Ministers understand about the Bills for which they are, responsible. Perhaps this does not matter to hon. Members opposite, who do not listen very much. They are driven through the Lobby and often they do not often know what it is all about. That is obvious from some of the conversations which take place outside afterwards.
    I imagine that the words which I seek
    to delete enable the Postmaster-General to control something which he does not provide, and they make me a little suspicious. He knows that I have some connection with the part of South Wales from which he comes. I am a North Walesian and he is a South Walesian, and we are always suspicious of each other. Each regards the other as an alien. Most of those in the South are aliens because they came from England to dig coal.
    I am most suspicious about the words in the brackets and I want to know what their purpose is. Whenever we find words in brackets in a Bill, it is a reason for being suspicious. It is a device for concealing something or other. I hope the Postmaster-General will give me an adequate explanation of why he has put in these words in brackets, which seem to me to be very strange and totally unnecessary. I do not see why the Postmaster-General should control other people's telephonic communications.
    I said at the beginning that my mind was not originally fastened upon Hull. I have been there only twice in my life. I merely wondered what the words meant. I hope that an hon. Member representing Hull will take part in the debate, because, after all, Hull has a rather clean reputation and I do not want it disturbed. Hull has the best telephone service in the United Kingdom; it is the only telephone service not under the control of the right hon. Gentleman.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: I want to say a word in support of the Amendment moved by my hon Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and to thank him for the tribute he paid to the Hull telephone service. In passing, I might say that we should be glad to welcome him in Hull whenever he likes to come.
    This Clause, and particularly the words which it is proposed to exclude, raises

    2331
    serious doubts in the minds of the people of my city. We feel that those words may have some sinister significance in regard to our telephone service. I do not propose to go into any lengthy description of it, because it is well known, but it has lasted since 1902 and is still going strong under licence from the Postmaster-General which expires on 31st December, 1962. The licence covers a large part of the rural district surrounding the city, and it provides for a payment to the Postmaster-General of a royalty of 10 per cent. of its gross takings. I suggest that it may be argued from the wording of the Clause that the service is provided by the Postmaster-General. It could certainly be so argued if the words which it is proposed to exclude stand part of the Clause.
    In Hull we already possess the powers which the Postmaster-General will have conferred upon him by this Clause, namely, the powers of regulation, the powers to bring contracts to an end without individual notices, and so on. But if it is established that the Postmaster-General by Statutory Instrument can provide regulations applicable to the City of Hull, then our telephone service might be in grave danger. I want to illustrate that by three figures. For the year 1949–50 the Hull telephone undertaking achieved a gross surplus of £27,062 and a net surplus of £16,223, after paying the Postmaster-General a royalty amounting to £20,463. We have a similar and better record for many years while charging our subscribers rates no more, and in most cases less, than those charged for the national service.
    If, indeed, the Postmaster-General can make regulations which would apply to Hull, then that position might be completely altered and the undertaking might become a liability instead of a valuable asset. For instance, he may vary the rentals and charges, he may make costly regulations which will put a burden upon the undertaking that it could not carry and he may indeed—this is very significant so far as we are concerned—vary the royalty which is at present 10 per cent. He may even double it, which would wipe out our surplus completely.
    So, whether or not the Postmaster-General accepts the Amendment as it stands and excludes those words, I should
    2332
    be grateful if he would tell us in his reply how the Clause will affect Hull and whether it is his intention that the regulations for which he is now taking powers will be applied to our local undertaking.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): The speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) was largely asking for information. He had as usual a little fun but we have come to associate that with the hon. Member—
    Sir H. Williams: Serious fun. though.
    Mr. Hobson: I hope I can show him that I know sufficient of my brief without having to read it. Then we had a more serious contribution from the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. W. R. A. Hudson). As he knows, the Hull telephone service works under licence from the Postmaster-General and it is not the intention of my right hon. Friend to interfere with what happens in Hull.
    The reason for the words in parenthesis—
    "(whether through the medium of the public telephone system under his control or otherwise)"—
    is to ensure that the public telephone system will have access freely to the worldwide network, and also so that private exchanges which are rented from my right hon. Friend likewise have access to the general telephonic service. As far as those private lines are concerned which exist in the sole ownership of private persons, the regulations will not appertain at all. The sole reason for having these words in parentheses is that greater emphasis may be given to the means of telephonic communication.
    Sir H. Williams: I have heard the explanation and I find that it has nothing to do with Hull. The hon. Gentleman referred to people who have private networks having access to the international telephone service. I see by today's newspaper that we shall be able to dial PAR and get through to Paris. What does he mean by what he said? Does he mean that private telephone installations shall have access to the network? If I have a big office—which I have not—with a private branch exchange and several lines, does it mean that he can take steps to ensure that from there, or from a telephone in this building which has a private branch exchange, one can get through?

    2333
    The hon. Gentleman said he understood this without his brief, but I do not understand him without his brief. Perhaps he will consult his brief and give us further explanation, because I have not the foggiest idea of what his explanation meant.
    Mr. Charles Williams: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having made a quite important statement on behalf of the Government? It is important because there is no intention on the part of the Government of changing the fortunate position of Hull. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. W. R. A. Hudson) pointed out that his city is in the fortunate position of not paying higher telephone charges than the rest of the country, but that they make such a success of their system that they contribute largely to the taxpayers in the country.
    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the fact that he, the Postmaster-General and the Government have had the good sense to admit that the shining example of the efficiency of private enterprise shall continue—
    Mr. Hobson: It is a municipal enterprise.
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman said he had no intention of interfering with the licence, but may I ask him to develop it further under those words which would give him the necessary power, and grant other people licences? I should like between now and the Third Reading of the Bill to have him think that out because, from what the Assistant Postmaster-General said, many of us might be enabled to get better services in different parts of the country.
    I am not quite clear whether the word "medium" is the right one to use on this occasion. I rather doubt it. For instance, there are all kinds of mediums in the world—or should I say media? I ask whether, in the circumstances, it would not have been better to have introduced another word. I am not a professor or a lawyer, and I am not used to splitting words, but I do say that I cannot remember having come across this word before in an Act of Parliament, and it might be advisable, for the purpose of getting the best word, to omit that word on the Report stage and—obviously the drafting authorities would have to give their consent—find a better word than this which
    2334
    might be interpreted so badly, especially in places such as Wales, where the people might not realise the meaning of the word and misinterpret it even worse than other people would.
    I do not press this matter to the point of wishing to divide, because I feel that the Government have performed a useful service in recognising that if we want efficiency we should get away from any form of national control.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like to follow the point which was made with his usual vigilance by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. W. R. A. Hudson). I was glad to hear the Assistant Postmaster-General say that there was no intention to use the powers of this Bill to interfere with the Hull system, but I submit that under the words of the Clause as it now stands power is being taken to do it. I should be interested to hear from the Assistant Postmaster-General or the Postmaster-General whether they agree with my reading of these words, because it seems to me that the words as they stand are wide enough to give that power.
    On that basis, and in view of the
    statement of intention made by the Minister a moment ago. I hope it may be possible, if not at this stage, at any rate at a later stage of the Bill, to insert words making it perfectly clear that that power is not given. It would be perfectly easy to draft a proviso something on these lines: "Provided always that the powers taken under this Section shall not be deemed to apply to the telephone installation at Kingston-upon-Hull," or whatever may be the appropriate words. Some such words ought to be introduced, because it is wrong for Ministers of the Crown to take powers which are in excess of what they really mean.
    Although I am perfectly satisfied by the assurance given that the Assistant Postmaster-General does not intend to interfere with Hull at the moment, that assurance does not necessarily bind his successors, and I hope that in the interests of the extremely efficient system in Hull and in the interests of its continued functioning without interference by subsequent Postmasters-General, we may have some indication that the Government will, at a later stage, look favourably upon the insertion of the necessary words to make it quite clear that no such power is taken.
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: I should like briefly to reinforce the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I understand that the position is this. The Postmaster-General has no intention of interfering with the internal arrangements of Hull or with the internal arrangements of any private branch exchange. What he is seeking to do is to lay down provisions by which he will connect a private branch exchange with the trunk system or with the overseas system. That appears to us to be quite reasonable, but it appears from the Bill as it stands that the words give the right hon. Gentleman a power to interfere in a way which he does not intend.
    4.15 p.m.
    We do not expect the Postmaster-General to suggest an alteration at the moment, but I think it would be advisable if he would look at these words again to see that they are restricted to the powers which he wishes to take and which powers we agree he should have. It is merely a question of restricting the words of the Bill in that ambit.
    Mr. Hobson: It is perfectly true, as I said, that this provision does not interfere with those private branch exchanges which are not under rent from the Postmaster-General. Nor does it interfere with the Kingston-upon-Hull system. I am assured that the position of Hull is absolutely guaranteed by virtue of the fact that they are operating under a licence which has yet to run for many years. Therefore, in those circumstances, I fail to see why it is necessary to incorporate any other words in the Bill.
    Sir H. Williams: We have had no explanation at all why these words are in the Bill. The Assistant Postmaster-General has said something about private branch exchanges, but he has not told us what private branch exchanges. He has said that Hull is out of the picture, but will he give one example of the kind of thing he means by the words "or otherwise"?
    Mr. McKie (Galloway): I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General will be kind enough to reply to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), has just made and to which he has sought a reply from the
    2336
    Assistant Postmaster-General. There can be no question—there never has been in the past—that words are put into a Bill for a definite and specific purpose. If the purpose is merely that they should look nice, or to give the draftsmen a little more to do, or to cloud the minds of laymen like myself, well and good. If that is all that is intended, I should be satisfied, although I hate anything that is unnecessary or redundant.
    I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that I am not trying in any way to be obstructive; I am trying to be helpful. After all, the telephone system affects everybody, high and low, rich and poor. We all desire the most efficient telephone system in the country, and we want to see that this Clause sets out to make things more efficient. We should have a little more amplification from the hon. Gentleman, or perhaps from his chief—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East, being a fellow Welshman, would very much like to hear the Postmaster-General himself—stating what the words mean and telling us why it is necessary to have them in what the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, hopes will be a Statute before the Summer Recess.
    I think the Assistant Postmaster-General has done his best with regard to Kingston-upon-Hull, after the very able speech and the many interrogations which were addressed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. W. R. A. Hudson). I think he has eased the mind of my hon. Friend—he has eased mine—but he has left me very doubtful indeed about the private branch exchanges—[Laughter.] It is all very well to laugh. I do not wish to be too disrespectful, but hon. Members opposite are often inclined to laugh when matters involving many of their constituents are under discussion, and they may be disinclined in the dog days which may soon be upon us to examine these apparently innocent matters with the degree of seriousness which they merit. The private branch exchanges will fail to be satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's remarks as far as they have gone.
    Although I should like to refer to the kind of cases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) alluded, with regard to Wales and Scotland, I will content myself by saying that I hope one or other of the representatives of the Post Office will be

    2337
    good enough to explain why it is necessary to have these words in the Bill, and make the position a little more clear with regard to the private branch exchanges in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman does that, I feel he will have done a very good service to the general public, who are so interested in having a good telephone service.
    Mr. John Hay: I want to get back to the point about Kingston-upon-Hull, because many of us on this side of the Committee are a little puzzled about what the position is to be. The Assistant Postmaster-General said that the licence under which his right hon. Friend provides the service to Hull has a number of years to run. I am not certain, and I do not think anyone will take a snap judgment on it, whether regulations made under the Statute would or could override that licence.
    This is not a fanciful point. A Statutory Instrument is really delegated legislation exercised in a modified form. Practically every day Statutory Instruments are made which have the effect of varying and altering obligations in different contracts made by private indivduals. We do not know the terms and all the details of the licence granted to Hull. I should like the Postmaster-General to give us an assurance that he will look at this matter again. I can understand that he may feel, when he has looked at it, that he is quite right, but we are not putting this forward for the fun of doing so and we would like him to look at it again.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): I must reply to the blandishments from the other side of the Committee, but I cannot understand this indignation. I think my hon. Friend made it quite clear. I gave an undertaking on Second Reading that these regulations would not be allowed to interfere with any contract which existed except that the contract should be terminated by the means provided within the contract itself. That, surely, must apply to Hull and its licence. I should be astonished if Hull did not claim that its licence is a contract and, therefore, it could not be terminated except upon the terms and conditions contained within the licence.
    Sir H. Williams: Like the Persian oil business.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I think that is quite clear and there ought to be no apprehension about it. Incidentally, I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. W. R. A. Hudson), refer to the efficiency and success of the Hull system which has been due to regulations it had and for which I am asking in this Bill.
    Now I come to the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who gave half his case away. He is certainly agreeable that we should have the power to make regulations governing the use of the public system, but his Amendment would withdraw our right to have regulations governing the public system. He has run away from that—
    Sir H. Williams: No
    Mr. Ness Edwards: He now pins his case to the words "or otherwise."
    Sir H. Williams: I do not know what they mean.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The Postmaster-General has no control over the telephone system abroad; no control whatever. Therefore, it is "otherwise" than under his control. The public telephone system in this country is under my control, but the public telephone system abroad is not under my control. I must have powers to make regulations governing the use of the medium of telephonic communication with other administrations abroad. The same applies to radio-telephony. That is all this amounts to. It is that and no more.
    We are talking now about the medium of the communication, and "otherwise" refers to the media of communication, not under my control, which are abroad. It seems clear that unless we can have the power to make regulations governing the conditions of using, or governing the conditions of access to, other telephone systems abroad, we shall completely isolate ourselves, leave ourselves without a very important means of revenue and a valuable facility for the people of this country.
    Sir H. Williams: I am more confused than ever. This is to make regulations, not for the purpose of initiating a telephone call in this country, but on how such a service is to be regulated in Paris.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No.
    Sir H. Williams: What does it mean? Let us read the words very carefully, because now, at least, we have some kind of indication of what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman.
    "….make regulations for determining the terms and conditions on which the use of means of telephonic communication provided by him (whether through the medium of the public telephone system under his control or otherwise…"
    That means my access to an instrument in this country—
    "or otherwise)"
    How can the right hon. Gentleman make regulations as to what happens at the other end? His writ in these regulations cannot extend outside the frontiers of Britain, unless someone is so stupid as to set up a system of federal government in Europe, of which I do not approve. His writ does not run beyond the three-mile limit, as far as I know. I am trying to find the faintest example of the kind of regulations the right hon. Gentleman would have to draft to give effect to those words, "or otherwise." The Assistant Postmaster-General has had a go, the Postmaster-General has had a go and I have seen the Parliamentary Private Secretary briefing him but they still have not given a clear idea of what they want to do. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an outline of how I am to get into communication with Paris without these words in the Bill? He cannot do so.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "or providing for determining."
    I think it would be greatly to the convenience and relief of the Committee, to say nothing of the Chair, if I also discussed later Amendments with this Amendment: in page 2, line 7, leave out "or providing for fixing"; in line 22, leave out or determined under"; in line 30, leave out "or determined under": and in page 3, line 7, leave out" or under."
    The Chairman: The Chair is quite agreeable. These Amendments seem somewhat associated. Is it possible to have them discussed together?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: There are certain differences which might come out in discussion. I do not want to inconvenience
    2340
    or disoblige the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) but I think it would be better to take them seriatim and then, when the principle has been agreed, they might be moved formally.
    The Chairman: Does not that mean repetition? If there would be repetition it is better that the discussion should be on the first Amendment, but I do not wish to press the matter against the wishes of the Committee.
    Mr. Hay: I think it would undoubtedly lead to repetition, because the point I wish to put is quite brief.
    Subsection (1) gives the Postmaster-General power to make regulations for certain purposes which are described in the Bill as for determining terms and conditions on which the use of the telephone will be permitted and in particular
    "for determining, or providing for determining, the terms and conditions "
    on which calls may be made and
    "for fixing, or providing for fixing, charges."
    4.30 p.m.
    The purpose of these Amendments is to elicit exactly what is the right hon. Gentleman's intention in using that alternative form of words. We are rather puzzled that an alternative should be referred to at all, and we should like to ask why it is really necessary, when power is being taken for these regulations to determine terms and conditions and to fix charges, to qualify it by saying
    "or providing for determining."
    We feel that the Regulations that are to be made—we already know from what happened on the Second Reading that they are likely to be voluminous—should be clear. If there is any lack of clarity in the parent Statute, it is likely to cause some ambiguity and doubt when people come to draw up and construe the regulations which are made. If the Bill authorises the determination and fixing of charges by regulations, should we not say that determining and fixing should be by regulations alone and not by some other method? The words
    "providing for determining,"
    which we seek to leave out, would indicate that there is some other possible procedure for such matters within the regulations, some other power perhaps to determine and fix the charges within those regulations.

    2341
    We ask whether, in fact, what is intended is not some kind of sub-delegation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) put it on Second Reading, to some other authority within the regulations themselves when the questions come to be decided. My hon. Friend was extremely clear when he referred to this matter on Second Reading. He said:
    "The disadvantage of that is that even the degree of Parliamentary control given by this Bill is thereby excluded because it is only the regulations and not the exercise of the power delegated under the regulations which is subject to any Parliamentary control. We have seen in other cases how delegated legislation has produced children and grandchildren that is to say, power twice delegated, and in the process of that double delegation twice insulated from even the formalities of Parliamentary control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 621.]
    That is the point we want to have cleared up. The reason was not given in the closing speech by the Assistant Postmaster-General, but I do not complain about that because a number of other points made had to be dealt with, and naturally time was limited.
    The view we have about this rather important point is strengthened when we refer to other similar provisions, which are the subject of the other Amendments on the Order Paper, and which have been linked with the one I am moving. For example, Clause 1 (1, b) relates to the fixing of charges and goes on to say:
    "…for providing that the provision as aforesaid by him of equipment or apparatus shall be subject to compliance with such terms and conditions as may be specified in or determined under the regulations."
    There, I think, is ambiguity or duality of the possible purpose. There is power under the regulations and also apparently there is power of determination by some other person. Clause 1 (1, c) also has the same defect to the extent that here again a period of time is fixed and the decision as to the period of time is such
    "as may be specified in or determined under the regulations."
    Again, there is power for someone else to determine the time. Clause 1 (2) provides:
    "Different provision and charges may he made and fixed by or under regulations.…"
    Here again, there is that duality.
    I hope it will not be considered that these are unnecessary technical points. I
    2342
    think they are important for the reasons given by my hon. Friend on Second Reading. If we are to have these regulations, it should be quite plain that it is the regulations which are to govern, and not some Departmental decision by some individual far removed from the actual scene of events who will decide and determine on some matter purporting to come within the regulations. I hope, therefore, that we shall have a clear explanation of what is the exact meaning of these words.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The Amendment has been moved in an extremely reasonable manner, and it is right that an explanation should be given of the powers which it is proposed to take in these regulations. In the first place, it ought to be realised that the Post Office is a great commercial undertaking, and I am sure that the last thing the Committee want to do is to strangle it with red tape. We want to give every reasonable opportunity to exercise initiative. We want people on the spot to be able to decide what to do instead of referring to headquarters to get authority. Things can be done more quickly and far more efficiently that way, even without the skilled help of the people at headquarters. The feeling about this is very wide.
    The first point deals with rentals, and I should like to remind the Committee of the great disparity that exists in the conditions occurring within the Post Office. There is, on the one hand, the large firm with whom we have contracts which run into thousands and thousands of pounds, and there is the ordinary village cobbler who pays a rental of something like £4 a year. It is obvious that we cannot fix in regulations what the charge may be in cases like those or, indeed, for any one of the five million utterly dissimilar circumstances which prevail.
    Therefore, it is necessary that on the job someone must have the right to fix the proper charge. How is it possible, for instance, in regulations to predetermine the amount of connection charge that ought to be paid by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams).
    Sir H. Williams: Zero.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That is not a charge but the absence of one. In his case, the hon. Member wants a connection made to a certain part of his office.

    2343
    The distance may be short or it may be long. How are we to determine under the regulations what we are going to charge him?
    Sir H. Williams: So much a foot.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: How could we provide for a charge of so much a foot in the regulations with the cost of materials and the cost of labour varying? These regulations have to provide beforehand what an appropriate charge would be while these other considerations are occurring willy-nilly all the time. That is one of the types of case for which we want to have the power to fix the charge.
    Secondly, I have sought in the regulations for power to reduce a charge for a special night rate. This relates to the other Amendments which are under consideration. Had we taken them individually, I would have put forward groups of arguments to deal with each Amendment, but as we are taking them altogether, I am putting all the arguments together. The regulations, when they are issued, will provide a rate for ordinary telephone calls, but I will take power under them to reduce the ordinary rate to give a special night rate. I must have have the right from time to time either to extend the hours over which this preferential cheap rate will apply or to contract them in accordance with the traffic which exists at any time.
    It will also enable me to try to arrange to have preferential charges to break the peak traffic which we cannot handle. We set peaks of traffic at certain times. One of my predecessors, Sir Kingsley Wood, did a lot in this direction. He found the peak reached such a stage that it could not be handled, and what he did under the powers he had was to arrange for cheaper rates during the off-peak periods. We now have periods where the traffic reaches such a peak that it becomes extremely difficult to handle, and I want the power to reduce the charges in order that we may spread the traffic and get a much more efficient use of the service.
    Sir H. Williams: How often does the right hon. Gentleman want to do this? I gather he is making a plea for a regulation so that inside that regulation he may play about without restriction from Parliament. The frequency cannot be very often. He has only to consult his
    2344
    right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the frequency with which his right hon. Friend uses regulations about the price of babies' nappies, which we were discussing late last night, and he will see that he is trying to get outside the control of Parliament.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot get outside the control of Parliament. What must be recognised with regard to the Post Office is the very great degree of Parliamentary accountability.
    Sir H. Williams: That is a good idea. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell that to the other nationalised industries.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: What I am proposing in this Bill is to provide for an even greater degree of Parliamentary accountability. I have never resented any question at all even about the most minute thing in the Post Office. I think it right that Parliament should be recognised as the boss of the show. Parliament represents the citizens and we must be accountable to them. In that sense, whatever I do should be accountable to Parliament and I should be liable to be shot at for any misdemeanour I may commit. So that question does not arise.
    Regarding how often I should want to change the charges, the hon. Gentleman has referred to nappies, which I understand are changed very frequently. I quite agree that the number of occasions on which I should want to change these preferential rates would not be as great as the number of changes which occur in the case of nappies. But here we have a changing traffic. It may change whenever we get a storm or interference with our radio communications. The traffic was very heavy at the time of the Test Match.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that I want this power in this case, not to increase the cost to the consumer, but to reduce it. When we are passing on a concession of that sort, we ought not to have to wait to come before Parliament to get a regulation before we can pass on the benefit. If I were imposing a greater cost, I could understand the hon. Member's point of view.
    There are other things which cannot be provided for in regulations. Take, for example, personal calls. A personal call may take place over the radio, by

    2345
    telecommunication to Spain or the South of France, where some hon. Members go. from both sides of the House—
    Sir H. Williams: I pay my own fare when I go.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: So do I. How can we determine in regulations how much is to be charged for a personal call to be taken in the South of France? The terms and conditions in France are not under my control and cannot come under my regulation. What I have sought to do is to have the power under regulation to fix the charge.
    Sir H. Williams: May I ask a question? Suppose I want to ring up a friend in the South of France, surely before I start the operator will tell me the charge. I presume that the operator already has the charge fixed. Surely that charge must be published in some way. If so, why not in the form of a regulation?
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Because the present method is that the charge is published in the London Gazette. It does not have any authority from this House. It may come into operation within a few days. The publication of a regulation for the purpose of altering a charge to one suburb of Paris would be nonsense. What the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do by his attitude is to strangle the Post Office with red tape.
    Take, for instance, Continental telephone calls. The Continental telephone system will not handle calls at all its exchanges right through the 24 hours, and one must have the right to fix conditions under the regulations on which those telephone calls will be accepted, because it is no use our accepting them here unless they are received and dealt with at the other end. I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that this Committee cannot hope to make regulations to control the use of the system in another country.
    Where we get very heavy traffic in some parts of the country we have to decide that during certain parts, of the day calls shall not exceed three minutes in order that the traffic may be dealt with. Those circumstances change from time to time, and what we are dealing with under those parts of the Bill which hon. Gentlemen
    2346
    are seeking to change by Amendment is the day-to-day operation of the system and the day-to-day changes in the conditions of the system which cannot be anticipated or formalised in terms of regulations to be submitted to this House.
    Here in London and in the docks we have initiated a system of telephonic communication with ships which are linked
    up with the public system. If the ship is far out in the dock or in an inconvenient spot, the length of the connection is obviously much greater. Some shipowners take the view that they would like to have a public kiosk put on the ship and the Post Office be responsible. Other shipowners think they ought to have a telephone system of their own. All these conditions are variable and cannot he anticipated beforehand. We must have power to fix a charge, because if we cannot fix a charge we cannot provide the facility.
    A most important question is that of new apparatus. We are developing new telephone attachments, and from time to time we want to put them into use and to get experience of them before we come to any final conclusion about the charge to make when they become normal equipment. We must have power to fix a charge for the experimental period. With the introduction of teleprinters—and there are some new types of phonogram and facsimile equipment now coming into use —we want, for an experimental period, to have the right to fix charges. Otherwise, we simply cannot introduce them. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite not to put any impediment in the way of these facilities.
    My last point is about the right to fix the cost of repairs. If the hon. Member for Croydon, East throws his telephone at his wife and breaks it in half—
    Sir H. Williams: Or she throws it at me.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: —or she throws it at him, and smashes it beyond repair, all we have to do is to fix the price for replacement. It might be the hon. Gentleman's replacement, and that might be a very desirable expenditure. Various types of damage are incurred by
    Post Office apparatus, and the cost of repair varies in a multitude of ways. Someone must have the right to fix the cost of repair and replacement. We cannot do it very well by regulations. It is necessary, in

    2347
    order to run this large business and to meet this multitude of varying circumstances, to have the right to fix charges by regulations.
    Wherever the apparatus is normal, the charges will be specified in the regulations. Wherever the charge can be calculated beforehand, it will be put in the regulations. When we come to discuss the regulations, we shall be pleased to consider the introduction of further regulations to make good any omission which hon. Gentlemen opposite might have in mind. In the circumstances, I ask that the Amendment be withdrawn.
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: I was a little puzzled as to why the Postmaster-General did not want these Amendments to be discussed together. I think I understand now, because he has spent a considerable time discussing an Amendment which has not yet been moved. I refer to the one in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), in page 1, line 19, to leave out from "facilities," the end of line 6, in page 2. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will move that Amendment later, but we specifically excluded it from this series of Amendments, because we desire to leave the Postmaster-General with power to vary charges during certain periods. I am sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman has not met the more confined point of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay).
    I can understand perfectly well that there must be some elasticity to allow for the fixing of charges for special jobs, but I do not understand why that cannot be done under Clause 2 (1). This method of giving power under a regulation—not under a private contract—to provide for fixing charges, runs into the difficulty of sub-delegated legislation to which we all object in principle. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned ships. Surely those cases could be dealt with under Clause 2 (1) rather than by sub-delegated legislation. I should like him to explain why he cannot do that work under the powers contained in Clause 2 (1). The same applies to other instances which he gave.
    One would have thought that, generally speaking, the charges for connecting up telephones, extensions, and so on, could
    2348
    be put in the regulations. When I asked that the cord on my telephone should be twice the normal length, I was told at once what the charge would be. These are not charges which vary from day to day, or which have to be settled by the man who does the job. I should have thought that all these charges, which will not be changed except when there is a major alteration in prices or charges, could have been incorporated in regulations. If, for example, the Postmaster-General could reduce the general run of charges, or if he had to increase them, all he would have to do would be to lay an amending regulation before the House. I should have thought that in the other category of various little jobs, he could have used Clause 2 (1) and avoided the evil of sub-delegated legislation. I should like to know why that cannot be done.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee appreciated the general propositions with which the right hon. Gentleman began his speech. Indeed, he went so far in his enthusiasm for the Parliamentary accountability of his Department that, if his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport reads what he said, he will think that the right hon. Gentleman is a blackleg. That general observation, and his general observation on his desire to administer his Department as a great and flexible commercial undertaking, will commend themselves to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
    When he applied those admirable general propositions to the more specific and limited methods contained in this Amendment, he did not seem to use them as an effective argument against the Amendment. He was under the disability, which was obvious to most hon. Members, that he had expended a great deal of his eloquence in dealing with an Amendment which had not yet been moved, and which may never be moved. That detracted from the value of his argument when he came to deal with the specific matters which arise from this series of Amendments.
    I wish to confine my argument to these Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that his charges would be complicated. Of course they would; but would they necessarily be any more complicated than the scale of charges which

    2349
    British Railways impose? The scale
    of charges for British Railways are fixed in elaborate detail with the aid of the Transport Tribunal. Elaborate but definite scales have been laid down and they are ascertainable by everybody. I do not believe for one moment that the system of charges in the Post Office is necessarily any more complicated than that in the transport industry.
    I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not put the general scale of charges into the regulations made by him and laid on the Table. I do not see why he finds it necessary to insert words into the Bill to take power to authorise himself by these regulations to fix these charges in some other way without any Parliamentary control at all. That will be the effect, if he uses these words to confer on himself or on his Department the right to fix charges. These charges will not be subject to any form of Parliamentary control, and the fine words which the right hon. Gentleman used on Second Reading:
    "It will he seen that I am providing for this great national service a degree of Parliamentary accountability which is exceptional."—[OFFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 610]
    would only be true in the ironic sense of the term. It does seem to me that he has evaded, and did not deal in his speech at all with, the question of Parliamentary accountability, and that, if he uses the regulations simply to empower himself to fix the charges, he by-passes Parliamentary control over the fixing of those prices. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to me to bring any real reason, from the practical point of view, why it was necessary to do that.
    5.0 p.m.
    Let us take the example of the case of providing facilities for ships in docks. Obviously, ships are of different sizes, and may dock at different places, but it should not be beyond the capacity of the Department to devise a scale of charges providing different charges for ships which are half a mile or a mile away, whether he puts a kiosk on the boat deck, or puts the telephone in the captain's cabin or wherever he puts it, provided that he states in the regulations the scale of charges for doing that. It is a quite unnecessary reflection on his Department to suggest that they would have any difficulty whatever in providing such a scale of charges.
    2350
    When the right hon. Gentleman came to what was his main argument, he seemed to me to go astray entirely, because there he said that he could not do without these words "providing for determining," because it would be necessary for him to have the power to lower charges in special and exceptional circumstances. If he will look at the Bill, he will see that he has already got that power without the words which we seek to leave out. If he will be good enough to look at the bottom of page 1 of the Bill, he will see that one of the things which he takes power to do by regulation is to empower the
    "Postmaster-General to direct that, at such times or during such periods as may he specified in the directions, the charges fixed under this paragraph by the regulations or such of those charges as may he specified in the directions shall he reduced in accordance with the directions;".
    That is to say, he already has, independently of the words which we seek to delete, power to do what he rightly said he wanted to do, but which he seems to think he could not do if we took out the wording set out in this Amendment.
    We are, therefore, in this position. His major purpose, as he sees it, for having these words in the Bill, is already taken care of by other words in the Bill, and, if that is so, it seems to me that the whole case against this Amendment falls to the ground, and so, of course, when we come back to the major issue of principle, so do the almost concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He said, and I was glad to hear him say so, that he will put his general charges scheme in regulations to come before the House. That is excellent, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman, having said that he will do it, will do it, but why should he take power, as he is doing, to do precisely the opposite?
    There is nothing whatever in the wording set out in the Bill to prevent him, or subsequently his successors, simply producing a set of regulations saying that the Postmaster-General can charge what he likes for any service which he likes to provide. He can do that without any further Parliamentary sanction, as far as moving to annul regulations is concerned, because the power he will exercise, and which he confers upon himself, is different to the ordinary control over Statutory Instruments and will not be affected by Statutory Instruments at all.

    2351
    This is the same point as that which we discussed on an earlier Amendment. Here, he comes forward with, apparently, a blameless intention, yet, at the same time, seeking to argue what seem to me to be highly blameworthy powers. I do not think it is a respectable argument to address to the Committee to say that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman wants the powers is that he will not use them, and that is really what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. He will, in fact, submit these charges to Parliamentary control, but he is taking power in these regulations to alter every one of them or to vary every one of them, under powers sub-delegated to himself and immune from Parliamentary control.
    That is the right hon. Gentleman's decision. If he would say that, in the light of this discussion, he would reconsider before the next stage, or, indeed, in another place, the insertion of some other words to make it clear that neither he nor his successors shall have the power to do what he said he does not want to do, I think we should make much easier progress, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot come to that Box and seek to insist upon retaining in the Bill those powers if he is not going to exercise them. The only substantial reason which he put forward for seeking to exercise them is dealt with, as I have already pointed out, in the words at the bottom of the first page of the Bill.
    We are here up against a thing with which we are all to familiar—the tendency for Ministers to ask for far wider powers than are necessary—and, to our regret and to our shame, we in this House have only too often acceded to these requests. I think that public opinion, inside and outside the House, is now much more alive to that danger than it was some years ago, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who has shown himself to be reasonable to public opinion on some aspects of the matter, will appreciate that both public opinion and sound constitutional doctrine demand that a change should be made in the Bill.
    Mr. A. Edward Davies: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in his discourse upon delegated legislation and its evils. The hon. Member has, by this time,
    2352
    sought to educate all of us here and the country upon the evils of this form of legislation, and we have a great deal of sympathy with his point of view. It is certainly a practice which needs to be very carefully watched, and, certainly, Parliament should exercise the closest scrutiny and control over things which are of public interest.
    As I listened to the Postmaster-Genera, today, it seemed to me that he made out a very good case for what he is seeking to do in this Bill. He made the point that there was such a variety of day-to-day jobs which need to be settled, not only centrally, but in the country, that it would be a complete waste of time for any Parliament to discuss them every time somebody wanted a little telephone job doing quickly by the Post Office. Surely such things can be done without a great deal of elaborate regulations, especially where prices and circumstances are changing from week to week, and even more frequently than that. I should have thought that that was really carrying the argument very much too far.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the former Railway Rates Tribunal and the present Transport Tribunal, which, he said, was a comparable body which might be regarded as having a comparable job to do. He said that there was a formula laid down, and that what was done was there for everybody to see and that Parliament had a certain amount of control over what was done in that way. May I respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that, today, there is a great deal of argument in the transport and economic world that the Transport Commission is hamstrung, because of the rigid and inflexible nature of its machinery. It is said that, at a time when charges and circumstances are changing and when it is necessary to adjust charges to customers, that piece of clumsy and longwinded procedure handicaps a corporate body in having to observe conditions, which were framed in totally different days, in a condition of monopoly in which it had to ensure that preferential treatment was not given to customers. I agree that in this matter we have to protect that position.
    A very pertinent point in the argument is, of course, that if the charges were published we should be assured that everybody was having the same treatment,

    2353
    whereas if we left it to the Minister he could make his own terms. There would be no assurance on the matter. Nevertheless, I submit that in this matter the Postmaster-General has made out a very good case on grounds of practical day-to-day administration and of giving the country good service, and I for my part cannot see that there is any abstraction from the powers of Parliament in doing the job this way. I hope we shall give the Postmaster-General this power.
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to reply?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I was not quite certain that a reply was called for. I was astonished at the hon. Gentleman, who has had experience of the Post Office, putting forward the propositions he did. I am certain that if he were there now he would not put them forward.
    Mr. Grimston: The right hon. Gentleman should not adopt that attitude. First of all, I told him that he had put up a very good case against an Amendment which had not been moved, and then I put to him perfectly seriously the point about the mischief of sub-delegated legislation. I asked him why he could not use the powers taken under Clause 2 (1). I expect an answer to those questions and I do not expect to be told that I should not ask for a reply.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman should not be too hasty. What he is asking me to do is this. If someone wants two screws put into his telephone, I should do it by agreement; if someone wants his telephone moved from room A to room B. I should do that by agreement. Is that really the way in which to run a business? How it is now done is like this. The officer goes across to see the subscriber who wants his telephone moved from one room to another, measures up the job, and gives the cost. If the subscriber says he accepts the estimate of the charge, the work is done.
    Mr. Grimston: He now signs an agreement.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The customer does not sign an agreement. He signs an agreement for his rental, but not for his changes, or even for his extensions. He makes application for them, but does not sign an agreement.
    Mr. Hay: What the right hon. Gentleman has just told the House is a give-away of his point. What happens is that though there is no agreement, there is a verbal contract between the agent of the Post Office and the subscriber.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am asking for power to fix charges. How do I fix them? My officer goes to the subscriber and tells him what the job will cost, and it is done. If I do it by regulation, I must have an agreement form; I must get someone to draft an agreement. The amount of time taken up in doing that would be far more than by the other method.
    It has been suggested that ship-to-shore communication should only be provided under agreement. Do hon. Members opposite seriously suggest that in every case where a ship asks for this service it should only be supplied under agreement? Many ships dock one day and go out the next. Is an agreement to be drawn up in such cases? I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman, who, I believe, has had a longer experience in the Post Office than I, that in this matter he ought to rely on the good judgment of those who served him in the days when he was in that Department and who serve me today.
    Mr. Grimston: How does the right hon. Gentleman suppose these things are done as between private firms who, of course, have no series of regulations laid down by Parliament.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Private enterprise say a thing will cost so much, and that is that. That is what I am asking for. Is it suggested that if, for instance, Mrs. Jones wants two screws put into her telephone she should look at the regulations to see what the job will cost? I think that is a preposterous suggestion.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman says it is preposterous, but if Mrs. Jones takes her shoes to the shoemaker for repair she pays the shoemaker the price laid down by his right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Whatever Mrs. Jones pays, the cobbler is not answerable in this House for the charge, whereas I am answerable in this House to the representatives of the nation for any charge I make to any citizen in the country.

    2355
    I now come to the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I wish he would not import so much political prejudice into the consideration of the problems facing this great national institution. He has, I believe, recently become a father, but I notice that in every one of his arguments he still has the bad habit of pouring out the baby with the bath water. All I can say is that I trust he has a greater experience on the domestic front.
    It is my intention, and I made it quite clear, that in normal circumstances provision will made in the regulations for the generality of charges. I shall make them as all-embracing as I possibly can. But no one can anticipate all the variations. I must have power to fix charges in a variety of circumstances which cannot possibly be anticipated, and many of which may have no identity with any similar circumstances. That is my case. The hon. Gentleman said that this was a sort of sub-delegation of powers for which there is no Parliamentary accountability. He is quite wrong in his conclusion. I am always accountable to Parliament, whether a thing is done under regulation or not.
    Hon. Members can raise any question concerning Post Office administration. They can question any treatment I may mete out to any subscriber; they can ask why a letter has been delayed, or why through a reorganisation of the postal service a town has been robbed of its special identity. All such matters can be raised in this House. Indeed, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has been the person who has taken the greatest advantage of my Parliamentary accountability to question me on all sorts of things. Therefore, for him to say that I shall be able to do these things behind the back of Parliament is not to pay himself a compliment for the awareness and agility which he has shown for a considerable time in these matters.
    In view of what I have told the Committee, I do not think it should support this Amendment. I am satisfied that the hon. Gentleman who moved it, and who, unlike his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, has a considerable amount of industrial experience—
    Mr. Hay Mr. Hay indicated dissent.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I understood he had. I am surprised to learn he has not, if I may say so, because he spoke with a good deal of sense. I should have thought that the case I have put forward completely proves the need for giving me the powers for which I ask.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Postmaster-General had rather a bad run, because not only did he attribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) industrial experience which he has not had, but he did what, outside, would have been the more serious thing and attributed to me a recent degree of paternity which equally I have not had.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I can only say that I regret that very much.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his regrets, which no doubt are founded on eugenic reasons. Equally, when he thinks over what he has said and, perhaps, reads his speech in HANSARD, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he indulged in a very false point when he said that there was no need to worry about Parliamentary control over the regulations because he was always accountable to Parliament.
    If there were any validity whatever in that argument, there would have been on need to put in the Bill the degree of Parliamentary accountability for the making of regulations which is, in fact, in the Bill. If there is any validity in his argument, those words are surplus, yet the right hon. Gentleman has put in these words. He cannot at the same time be heard to say that it is right to put in these words, under which his regulations are liable to be annulled by the House, and then go on to say that if he makes other use of the powers which he is not expected to take, he is sufficiently accountable to Parliament anyhow, because those two arguments will not ride together.
    I have heard Ministers use that argument very many times, and they generally use it better than the right hon. Gentleman used it this afternoon. He knows as well as every hon. Member knows, how difficult it is in practice to bring a Minister of the Crown to book on a somewhat special and peculiar matter. In the

    2357
    first place, owing to the number of Questions nowadays, Ministers can only answer oral Questions fairly infrequently and when they are towards the top of the list. [Interruption.] Hon. Members have only to look at the list of Questions to see what little progress we have succeeded in making and how many Ministers who are down to answer orally are not reached. They will know how difficult it is on a Supply Day to raise a small and particular point, because even if one has the good fortune to catch the eye of whoever is in the Chair, there is no guarantee that in the end when the Minister replies, one will get a definite answer to one among 20 other things which have been asked of him.
    But when there is power to annul a regulation, any hon. Member has the right to bring the specific matter forward and to have it answered on the Floor of the House. That is a far more effective way, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, of securing Parliamentary accountability for the exercise of these delegated powers than are those other methods for which the right hon. Gentleman showed such enthusiasm. I am certain that he is a good enough Parliamentarian to know that that is so.
    Mr. Viant: I did not think that the Committee would pay undue attention to the Amendment. I have listened very attentively to all the arguments that have been adduced. Had hon. Members opposite put down an Amendment asking that the Postmaster-General should issue a price list of all the services that are likely to be rendered by his Department, I could have appreciated at once what they were after; but in essence and in practice that is precisely the thing for which they are asking, and they are asking for it, to be incorporated in regulations.
    The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston), with his experience of the Post Office, knows quite well that this proposal would be simply ridiculous, if not an impossibility. I could suggest many services that have to be rendered by the Department. but it would be quite impossible to incorporate them in a price list, because contingencies arise which are not always similar—in fact, they can be very dissimilar—and in practice the result would be that it would be quite impossible to forecast or to suggest what the
    2358
    price of a certain service was likely to be. When it is analysed, the idea behind this proposal is simply absurd.
    We are, of course, always interested to hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He puts up a bogey, marches on to the other side, knocks another one down, and then returns to knock the first one down again. It is the old argument, which is very interesting from the point of view of dialectics, but which when analysed has nothing in it. The hon. Member enjoys himself. We delight in hearing him, except that at times we feel he has wasted a considerable amount of time. None the less, he has been amusing in putting forward the Amendment. My right hon. Friend has to take it at its value, and I hope that the Committee will vote against it.
    Mr. Hay: The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant), attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) an agility which earlier the Postmaster-General attributed to him. I certainly did not form the same impression of a very careful, and carefully reasoned, argument that my hon. Friend put forward on the Amendment as did the hon. Member for Willesden, West. Having listened with great interest to the whole of the discussion which the Amendment has initiated, I feel that we have not had a satisfactory answer in this matter, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think again about it.
    I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He says it is vital that there should be flexibility; that it would be quite intolerable for every small every day matter to be laid down and determined in advance by regulations. I see the justice of that; to a certain extent it is reasonable. But I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has fully appreciated, even now, the difficulty which is in our minds, that there is a substantial risk that by administrative action alone the subscriber may be substantially prejudiced because the person who is to exercise the rights which the words that the Amendment seeks to delete will give him under the Statute will be someone far away from direct contact with the subscriber who is affected.

    2359
    The right hon. Gentleman says, "That is all right. Why worry? I am accountable to Parliament, either under the regulations or by Questions to me by Members of the House." That may be so, but as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that is a somewhat cumbersome procedure. One is never certain of getting an opportunity to have a question fully answered, whether in debate or by means of a Question.
    We on this side still feel that to leave these words in the Bill gives to people in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, albeit with the very best of intentions and with the best will in the world, powers which Parliament ought not to confer directly upon them. I do not see, even now, that it would be completely impossible or intolerable that all these matters should be broadly regulated by the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman will in due course lay.
    I suggest once more that he reconsider this matter. I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment, because it will have a slightly greater impression upon the Postmaster-General if the Committee comes to a decision upon it; but I again urge him to realise that we are putting forward something upon which we feel deeply, and something which, we feel, would improve the Bill and avoid what would otherwise be a very substantial risk.
    Amendment negatived.
    5.30 p.m.
    Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out "or indirectly."
    Unfortunately, I have been out of the Chamber for a few minutes and I am not quite certain whether this Amendment was discussed in connection with the previous Amendment or not. Nevertheless, I think that there is a point in this Amendment by itself. I move it because I want to know what the Postmaster-General means by "or indirectly," and I should like the position clarified.
    Mr. Hobson: The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is again asking for information as he did on the first Amendment. The reason for including the words "or indirectly" is to cover ancillary services of the telephonic system.
    2360
    There is, for instance, the case of dictating a telegram over the telephone, in other words, the phonogram service, and of summoning an express messenger on the telephone to collect a letter or some article. The words cover such services as those. I hope that the hon. Member will be satisfied this time with the explanation.
    Sir H. Williams: I think the explanation is much better this time. I understand that one of the services is where I can ask the Post Office to call me in the morning. It used to cost me Id. It now costs a little more, but it still wakes me up. In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Sir H. Williams.
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: On a point of order. Is not the Amendment to line 18 which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends to be called?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I thought that the Amendment was covered in the earlier discussion.
    Mr. Grimston: With respect, Sir Charles, I do not think so. The Amendment to which I refer is that which seeks to insert words after "system."
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not think that Amendment was included in the group of Amendments which it was suggested should be taken together. With respect, Sir Charles, I think that it might be better to call that Amendment.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Very well.
    Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, after "system," to insert:
    "for determining the circumstances and classes of case in which the Postmaster-General shall not he under any obligation to provide equipment or apparatus for the purpose of affording means of telephonic communication."
    Perhaps it would be convenient if we discussed with this Amendment the last Amendment to Clause 2, in page 3, line 39, to leave out subsection (3).
    What we are seeking to do here is to put better words into the Bill for achieving the object which the Postmaster-General has in mind. He will remember that on

    2361
    Second Reading reference was made to the provision in Clause 2 (3) which reads:
    "Nothing in the foregoing section shall he construed as implying that the Postmaster-General is under any obligation to provide equipment or apparatus for the purpose of affording means of telephonic communication."
    The right hon. Gentleman explained in his Second Reading speech that that was required in order that he could withhold service in certain cases. He gave an instance of one where a firm went bankrupt and certain persons in the company re-established themselves and he did not place them on the telephone until they had paid the old bill. One can quite imagine such cases. The right hon. Gentleman added:
    "Subsection (3) preserves the freedom under the present contractual system of the Postmaster-General to provide a service or not in a certain case "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June. 1951: Vol. 489, c. 610]
    Under the wording of subsection (3) the Postmaster-General is really taking wide powers to disclaim any responsibility for providing service at all under any circumstances. This is not a large point, but it seems to me it is another case of taking a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. I think it is rather beneath the dignity of the Post Office to take these wide powers just for this particular purpose, and anybody who has served in the Post Office will realise that there is an atmosphere of giving service in that Department and an esprit de corps which has been built over some time. It is therefore a pity that there should be in Clause 2 words which, in effect, say, "Do not forget that I am not under any obligation to provide you with anything." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will indicate that he will accept this Amendment which would specify in the regulations the classes of cases in which it might be necessary for him to withhold telephone service.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I too felt that we were using an elephant to do this small job, but on looking at the matter a little more closely I find myself in this position. If the Bill imposes upon me an obligation to provide a telephone service, it might cost in some cases as much as £500 to provide a telephone service for a single subscriber. Am I then to be under an obligation to provide a service in that case when the return for it would be about £4 12s. 0d. a year?
    Mr. Grimston: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has a remedy in that case. It would be to say to the subscriber "You must pay me this or that sum if you want a service," and thus cover the liability. The subscriber then could choose whether he would pay that sum or not.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am obliged to the hon. Member for making that point, but the regulation in practice is that a connection charge of 5s., 10s. or 15s. and no more is made. If one had to lay a cable to a lonely island, say Lundy, to provide a telephone—as I would be obliged to do if the obligation was imposed upon me in this Bill—goodness knows how much it would cost for a return of £4 12s. a year as the regulations now stand. That was what made me demur about changing this form of words when I considered the matter.
    If the obligation were limited and I was enabled to withhold the service in certain cases—such as the case of a bankrupt who had dodged his previous liability—by putting that type of cases into the regulations, one would still leave the obligation upon the Postmaster-General to provide a telephone in all sorts of impossible and uneconomic circumstances. It was for that reason that, whilst I see the point made by the hon. Member, I came to the conclusion that we ought to resist this Amendment.
    Sir H. Williams: I was interested in what the Postmaster-General has just said. At one time I was connected with the electric supply industry when it was run by private enterprise. I remember a speech made by the late Mr. Ernest Bevin in the election campaign of 1945, when he said, that he wanted to apply a system of "Postalisation" to electricity charges. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is the terminal charges that matter. The cost of transport is trivial and the Post Office in fact have never applied that system because trunk calls cost more than local calls.
    I have often heard private enterprise being violently abused by the right hon. Gentleman because they did not apply this system of flat-rate charging. Now that recently he has become a commercially-minded Postmaster-General he objects to spending £500 for a return of £4 12s. I am glad to see that he is now a reformed character. I have got up only

    2363
    to say these words and to underline what he said so that hon. Members opposite may be a little more careful about their platform speeches in future.
    Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I appreciate his difficulties. I wish it had been possible to find something less than an elephant. In view of the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman faces, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out from "facilities," to the end of line 6, page 2.
    I expect the right hon. Gentleman was a little surprised that I put down this Amendment. Again, it is exploratory. If we leave out these words he cannot make certain reductions which I imagine will be desirable in my own case and in that of other deserving people. To go back to the electricity supply industry, when the first Act was passed it said there must be no undue preference in the supply of the service. I do not think the courts were ever called upon to interpret what "undue preference" meant. We thought it might mean that one must not make more profit out of one consumer than out of another. There was never a decision in the courts.
    The phrase here is that such charges
    "as may be specified in the directions shall be reduced in accordance with the directions."
    I should be delighted if the right hon. Gentleman would direct that my telephone charges should be reduced and those of my hon. Friends left unchanged. I want to ensure that when he issues directions for the purpose of reducing charges these shall be of such a general character that no citizen can say, "The gentleman up the road is receiving preferential treatment by comparison with me."
    What the Minister says does not count in the courts, but it imposes a certain measure of discipline, and it would be as well if the Postmaster-General stated what he had in mind when he put these words into the Bill. It is very important in matters of public interest and the interests of individuals that people should be treated equitably. That is the purpose of the Amendment—to get from the right hon. Gentleman a statement of his inten-
    2364
    tions, whether they are honourable or dishonourable.
    Mr. Hobson: The subsection has been included for the benefit of telephone users and in order that they may have cheap telephone night rates. To take the analogy of the electricity industry, which the hon. Member is always quoting, the public can have cheap rates during the off-peak load. It is also to deal with the abolition of cheap rates on Christmas Day and New Year's Day.
    Mr. McKie: I am sure we are all obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his statement. But it is all very well to have pious aspirations about cheap rates. We should have liked him to lift the curtain a little and to give some indication of his intentions, if he and the right hon. Gentleman are allowed to remain in office a little longer, in the way of providing reduced charges. Hon. Members opposite have been ready to cheer and sneer at my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), but I hope they will take this point seriously to heart.
    It is very desirable that the general public should be given some indication of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions. No doubt it is impossible for him to reveal the whole of his plans, if he has any. I doubt whether he has, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East, says he has not. We cannot be expected to know what is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. It has been apparent throughout the whole of this discussion that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend delight in clouding the issue, where possible, and in using words in such a nebulous form that we on this side of the Committee, at all events, are none too clear about the meaning. We are specially charged with the task of protecting the public interest. [Laughter.] There has been little evidence from the other side of the Committee that hon. Members opposite take that duty seriously, as far as the telephone services are concerned.
    5.45 p.m.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General said it was his intention to do certain things in the way of reduced charges. The general public would be more satisfied if he could say what he intended to do or give some indication of what they may expect in the future, if this Government remains in

    2365
    office or, indeed, if their places are taken by hon. Members on this side of the Committee as a result of the October election.
    Sir H. Williams: We have had the Assistant Postmaster-General intervening four times and each time he has used the phrase "off-peak." Perhaps it is in his brief. I remember when Sir Kingsley Wood first introduced the cheap telephone calls after 9 o'clock—1s. all over the country. On the day it was introduced—it came into operation on a Saturday—I was at an electricity conference at Torquay and I wanted to talk to somebody in London. It was quite hopeless because the peak load had accumulated to such an extent because everybody wanted to take advantage of the cheap rates. It was not until I had told the operator that I was a Member of Parliament that I got through. She did not know what party I belonged to. Possibly she assumed that I was one of those M.Ps. who represent the Union of Post Office Workers and that was why she gave me the facilities. The hon. Gentleman must not become too obsessed with the phrase "off-peak." If he indulges in excessive reductions he will find that the peak comes at a new time of the day.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, after "regulations," to insert:
    Provided that any person aggrieved by the sum assessed may appeal to the county court against such sum.
    I think every hon. Member must sometimes wonder whether his telephone account is accurate. We have a lot of local calls of which the ordinary person does not keep a record. I understand that the Post Office have machines which automatically record them. In addition, there are the toll and trunk calls with an excess over the ordinary charges. We get a bill and sometimes we wonder whether it is accurate. Occasionally I have queried my telephone account.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this Clause deals with rentals and does not deal with calls at all.
    Sir H. Williams: I am dealing with the question of charges made. Sometimes we may desire to challenge them and I am not quite certain about the position
    2366
    of the citizen in respect to his telephone bill. We know that an Act of Parliament was passed recently which confers upon the subject a right he did not enjoy until two or three years ago—the right to sue the Crown. I presume His Majesty's Postmaster-General is part of the appanage of the Crown and that we can sue him more easily than we could at one time.
    What I want to make sure of is that if
    we are aggrieved by a bill sent to us by
    the right hon. Gentleman or his myrmidons we have a right of redress in the courts. I am not a lawyer, although anybody who has served some time in Parliament acquires a certain amount of legal experience; and so, not being a lawyer, I am not quite certain of what our rights are under the law as it stands, and I want to make sure that if we feel aggrieved by the type of account covered by this Clause we are entitled to take legal action against the Postmaster-General in respect of such an account. It is to clear up that point that I move the Amendment.
    Mr. Hobson: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. This subsection deals solely with the question of the rentals for telephonic equipment. Every subscriber will be responsible for rental for a minimum period. There are two classes. There are the ordinary residential subscribers whose rental may be for a month; and then there are the exceptional or long-term subscribers who have special installations which are also provided within the general framework of the telephone system.
    In the case of a residential subscriber, if he gives up the telephone prematurely—that is to say, before the expiry of the time limit—he will be responsible for the rental for that part of the term he had it, before the full period expired. If an intending subscriber cancels his application before service is given, he will pay the residue of the rental on the minimum rental period. The rental for the minimum period, or the cost of the work of installing the telephone, whichever is the smaller, he will be called upon to pay. Indeed, he may be called upon to pay even less, if we can use the installation for another subscriber.
    It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension, because in both these cases, if there were

    2367
    a default in the payment of the rental, it would be the Postmaster-General who would be aggrieved, and, in those circumstances it would be he who would take the proceedings under the county court procedure to recover what was his due. It would not be the person who had given up the telephone before the contractual obligations had been fulfilled, or who had never had the telephone at all because, although he had ordered it and the work on it had been put in hand, the order was cancelled. It seems to me that it would be my right hon. Friend who would be at a loss and who would have to recover the money through the county court, and not the person for whom the telephone had been supplied.
    Sir H. Williams: I am not quite satisfied. I confess that I was taken a little by surprise when my Amendment was called, because I had not expected it to be called, and so perhaps I did not put the case as well as possible. However, it seems to me that this Clause provides for charges other than rental, and it provides, amongst other things,
    "for the payment to the Postmaster-General, towards recompensing him for loss of revenue by way of charges in respect of the provision of the equipment or apparatus or, as the case may be, for the cost incurred by him in doing the work "—
    Doing the work: it is not merely a matter of the rental, but the cost of installation—
    "of a sum assessed by him in accordance with such principles as may he specified in the regulations."
    Now the Postmaster-General, under the regulations, is going to lay down principles. In accordance with those principles I get a bill. I think that bill is excessive. I resist payment. The right hon. Gentleman takes me to court.
    What I want to be quite clear and certain about is that the court will be able to decide whether or not the bill has been properly made out. The purpose of my Amendment—its drafting may, perhaps, be improved, for, as I have said, I am not a lawyer—is to make sure that the ordinary citizen who has a bill of that kind is protected or can be protected by the courts against the Postmaster-General, so that the Postmaster-General cannot treat him roughly. I hope I have made this quite clear. I want to make quite sure that the citizen is protected by the courts of law.
    Mr. Hobson: The point will be illustrated by the evidence before the court.
    Mr. Harmar Nicholls: There is an important point to be considered in this connection. The Postmaster-General has the remedy, and invariably uses it before the grievance is taken to court, of cutting the subscriber off.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No.
    Mr. Nicholls: Oh, yes.
    Mr. Hobson: The hon. Gentleman is talking of quite another matter. We are discussing the question of work not completed in putting the telephone in.
    Mr. Nicholls: Yes, but the Assistant Postmaster-General said this Clause had regard to rental. If a rental is payable it means that the instrument has been installed, and
    that rental is payable certainly for the first quarter. If one is aggrieved by some of the items on the bill and one does not pay, before ever the Postmaster-General resorts to the county court he cuts off one's line, whether or not the grievance is justifiable, and so puts one to the inconvenience of having no telephone at all.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General talks about installation charges, but it does so happen that other items appear on the bill, and charges for calls come in on the same bill; so we are referring, to some extent, to grievances felt about the charges for calls as well. I really think the Postmaster-General ought to give the subscriber a little bit more satisfaction, and while the court is coming to a decision the subscriber ought not to have his line cut off and suffer all the consequential inconvenience from a decision which the Postmaster-General can make.
    Mr. Hobson: But the subscriber knows his obligations when he orders the telephone to be installed.
    Mr. Shurmer: I am rather interested in this matter. If one is aggrieved by a bill
    sent by the Postmaster-General and refuses to pay that bill, the Post Office cuts the telephone off. Suppose one goes to court, or the Postmaster-General goes to court, is the Postmaster-General going to leave one's telephone or not, pending a decision of the court, or will

    2369
    he cut the telephone off because the account has not been paid? That is what we want to know.
    Mr. Hobson: If the bill were not paid in the first place, the telephone would be cut off.
    Mr. Shurmer: That is it.
    Sir H. Williams: Dirty work. However, after that not too adequate explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, at the end, to insert:
    (2) Nothing in this Act or in regulations made thereunder shall he construed as empowering the Postmaster-General to change in any way the terms and conditions specified in any agreement (whether made before or after the passing of this Act) with a person for the provision by the Postmaster-General of equipment or apparatus for the purpose of affording means of telephonic communication, or to determine any such agreement otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions so specified.
    The right hon. Gentleman will remember that during the debate on Second Reading we on this side of the Chamber expressed concern that in the Bill the Postmaster-General was taking powers to abrogate contracts. In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), he said:
    "There is nothing in the Bill which authorises me."
    My hon. Friend then asked:
    "Or 'prevents'?"
    Then the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "Authorises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 609.]
    What we felt very strongly was that if there was any doubt about the question it should be cleared up in the Bill, and that it should be written in the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman was not taking power to abrogate contracts. Perhaps, in view of what is happening in a certain country in the Middle East at the present moment, it is just as well for Parliament to remember that example.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear,
    Mr. Grimston: Well, we have drafted this Amendment, but I see that there appeared on the Order Paper this morning another Amendment in the name of
    2370
    the right hon. Gentleman, in Clause 2, page 3, line 23, at end, insert:
    (2) Nothing in the foregoing section shall authorise the making of regulations determining any such agreement as aforesaid (whether made before or after the passing of this Act).
    That appears to me entirely to cover the point, and therefore I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the Postmaster-General would say something about his Amendment now; for if he were to say that it does cover exactly the same point as that I have in mind, that would save the time of the Committee; and when we come to Clause 2 his Amendment could be moved formally and agreed to. I hope that the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to adopt this course.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for suggesting this procedure. I was impressed on Second Reading by the general feeling of the House that I ought not to take powers to interfere with contracts. The Explanatory Memorandum includes these words:
    "The transition to the new system will be effected by terminating the 5,000,000 odd existing contracts by the appropriate contractual notice.",
    and I felt that that in itself ought to be sufficient assurance that I did not intend to do an illegal thing, because it would have been illegal if I had interfered with contracts except within the terms of the contracts. It would not have been illegal —and this was the point which worried the House—if I had taken powers in the regulations to interfere with the terms of contract, but I still feel that a Postmaster-General would be quite wrong to interfere with the contract by using the regulation-making power, and I have no intention of doing that.
    I thought that my intention was adequately explained in the Explanatory Memorandum, but in order to reassure hon. Members, and I hope to emphasise the principle to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, I felt it desirable to put down an Amendment—in Clause 2, page 3, line 23, at end, insert:
    (2) Nothing in the foregoing section shall authorise the making of regulations determining any such agreement as aforesaid (whether made before or after the passing of this Act).

    2371
    I am advised that that completely covers the point. What I have done is to tie not only myself but, I hope, every future Postmaster-General in relation to individual contracts. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment and accept my form of words.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before my hon. Friend indicates what his response will be to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I should like him to clear up one point which arises as a result of what he said on Second Reading. Just before the words referred to by my hon. Friend, I asked the right hon. Gentleman:
    "what is the provision in the Bill which safeguards existing contracts from being interfered with by regulations made by him?"
    and the right hon. Gentleman then said:
    "I require no powers; I have the power to terminate contracts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 608.]
    It depends, of course, what is meant by "terminate." That is where the difficulty arises. Obviously if the right hon. Gentleman makes a contract and that contract contains provisions for bringing it to an end, the right hon. Gentleman has the power to do so, as has the other party. But used in this context it has certainly been believed by people outside that in using the word "terminate"—in itself, I think, an ambiguous word—he meant that he had the power to bring existing contracts to an end without regard to their provisions.
    From what the Postmaster-General is now indicating, I do not think that he meant to say that. It would help to clear up the misunderstanding which has arisen if he could now indicate, what I believe to be the fact, that apart from this Bill he has no power to bring to an end contracts other than in accordance with their terms. By his own Amendment he is, very properly, barring himself from doing so under this Bill.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot understand the ambiguity about my speech on Second Reading, when I was concerned to preserve the sanctity of contract. I declared on a number of occasions that it was my intention to terminate contracts by giving the proper notice provided in the contract. I have the power now, at any time, to give notice to terminate any contracts.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In accordance with its terms.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have the power, by giving the necessary notice provided for in the contract, to terminate the contract. That is a power I have always had, and I cannot understand the ambiguity about it. I hope the matter is quite clear now, and that the Postmaster-General will, neither now nor in the future, be allowed to terminate a contract except by giving the notice provided in the contract he will not be entitled to do it under regulations now or in the future.
    Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having met our point in this way. We always accepted his own assurance that he never intended to terminate a contract other than within its terms, but we felt it important, not only that there should not be that power to be misused by any future Postmaster-General, but that it should also go out to the world that this Committee would not tolerate that sort of thing happening. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks and the fact that he has put down the Amendment to which he referred, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, after "case," to insert:
    "but not in relation to similar circumstances and classes of case."
    This Amendment differs slightly from the Amendment as printed on the Order Paper, but I hope that I may move it in this form, because otherwise our subsequent Amendment in line 15 will not be able to be dealt with. What I am now moving is what we intend. The purpose of this Amendment can be very simply described. It is designed to ensure that in similar circumstances and classes of case there shall be no discrimination. That puts it in a nutshell.
    The subsection, quite rightly I think, empowers the Postmaster-General to make different charges and provisions in different cases and circumstances. When one realises the very wide variety of existing contracts, it is quite understandable that he should wish to retain the power to make such changes as may be necessary from time to time. For example, the ordinary form of contract

    2373
    is a three-monthly one, and the rental charge for the ordinary form of contract is £4 12s.; that is the common or garden variety.
    Then there are other contracts which differ substantially in duration. There is the monthly contract, used especially by newspapers which wish to have a telephone installed for certain sporting events, such as the Wimbledon tennis tournament, or the regatta which is going on in my constituency today—and where, if I may say so, I would prefer to be at this moment, as I expect most hon. Members would. Then there is the contract which would run for a period of years, covering a very large installation, perhaps, in a big office building.
    There are also differences of rental. I believe that rentals in London are higher than in some other big cities. In cities, rentals are higher than in the surrounding countryside. There is also a difference in the number of telephones which may be provided for any one subscriber, and in the number of lines which are allowed. There is also a difference in the type of use. A business telephone commands a higher rental charge than the telephone of the ordinary private subscriber.
    With all these differing circumstances and differing classes of case, no one would begrudge the Post Office the power to make different charges and different conditions in respect of them. While we agree that, obviously, the right hon. Gentleman must have this power to provide for these trying circumstances, we say that it would be entirely wrong to say that in similar categories in different places or at different times there should be different provisions and different charges. That is the point of the Amendment. We say that there should be uniformity in similar circumstances, because we believe that uniformity would lead to certainty and clarity.
    I do not think that it would be very difficult to categorise the various sorts of circumstances and classes of case and still maintain that flexibility to which we referred earlier. Every similar case ought to be treated in an exactly similar way, if we can do so, otherwise the subscribing public will just not know where they are. In exactly similar circumstances, one charge may be made in one part of the country and another charge in another part of the country. The words we pro-
    2374
    pose to insert would prevent that sort of thing from happening.
    Mr. Hobson: I think that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has put his point of view very reasonably, but we do not think that it is necessary to accept this Amendment. First, let me say that he has appreciated the difficulty of my right hon. Friend, which has come out in discussion of one or two of the Amendments moved by the Opposition, namely, the different circumstances that obtain with regard to the installation of telephones on the question of whether it should be a business rental or a residential rental, etc.
    The hon. Gentleman feels that it would be better to have these words inserted in the Bill, but I draw his attention to subsection (2), which states categorically:
    "Different provisions and charges may be made and fixed by or under regulations under this section in relation to different circumstances and classes of case, …"
    It would appear that this circumscribes the regulation-making power of my right hon. Friend, and there is no doubt at all that different regulations are not going to be for identical cases. It would be entirely invalid for my right hon. Friend so to do. Therefore, while we appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman has made, we do not think that under the circumstances the words are necessary.
    Mr. Hay: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. I do not understand why he says that it would be invalid for his right hon. Friend to make these discriminations. All that we seek to do is to ensure that there will not be discrimination, and we now have that assurance from the Assistant Postmaster-General; but, in spite of his explanation, I think that the words which we propose to insert would be very desirable. We may not have the right hon. Gentleman, beaming beneficently from the Dispatch Box opposite, representing the Post Office in the future, and it may be desirable to have some limiting words in this statute. I hope that the point, if not conceded, now will be considered again.
    Mr. Douglas Houghton: I found it rather amusing that any hon. Gentleman opposite should deliver a lecture to a Government Department on uniformity. If there is one thing that Government Departments suffer from, it is

    2375
    uniformity, and hon. Gentlemen opposite are now trying to urge on a Government Department that it should engage in uniformity to an even greater extent than at present.
    Surely the whole basis of equity in public administration is that, in similar circumstances, members of the public should be similarly treated, whether with regard to charges or Post Office service or Income Tax purposes; but there are occasions when slight differences may creep in which, if these words were put in the Bill, some member of the public would underline and say, "But there is a proviso which says:
    'but not in relation to similar circumstances and classes of case '."
    and try to exact from the literal meaning of those words a rigidity of charge and of treatment which it would be unreasonable to expect.
    I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise that with the long tradition of the Post Office, in which I began my working life, there is no fear that the General Post Office is going to rush into discriminatory treatment and excess of administration which would be open to objection by members of the public. I think that the explanation given by the Assistant Postmaster-General should completely satisfy the mover of the Amendment.
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: I take it from what the Assistant Postmaster-General has said that the important word is the word "different," in line 2 of subsection (2), and he is advised that, that word being there, the purpose of the Amendment is entirely covered. Is that so?
    Mr. Hobson: That is so.
    Mr. Hay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out from "provide," to "for," in line 10.
    I think that this may well be an issue of principle of some importance, but at this stage I desire to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman what is meant by these words. If hon. Members will look at subsection (2) they will see that regulations
    2376
    may provide for a number of things, including the words which we seek to leave out, which are
    "… for the determination of questions which may arise in giving effect to the regulations …"
    It appears that these words may be taken to authorise the right hon. Gentleman to include in his regulations some provision under which a person who enters into dispute with him about the regulations may be debarred the opportunity to take that dispute to the courts of law, and may have to argue them, if at all, before some Departmental tribunal set up by the right hon. Gentleman under the regulations.
    I have little doubt that the words are wide enough to enable the right hon. Gentleman to do that. If they are not—and I am glad to see present the Attorney-General, who will, no doubt, advise the Committee with his usual clarity and the authority which goes with his office—it seems to me that the words are liable to permit of the right hon. Gentleman denying to the citizen with whom he has any dispute on a matter arising out of these regulations access to the courts of law. We shall no doubt hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether that is his intention. I hope that it is not.
    Whether it is his intention or not does not dispose of the question whether the power is in fact taken. It seems thoroughly objectionable that in what is largely a commercial matter—and the right hon. Gentleman on a previous Amendment referred to his Department, quite rightly, as a vast commercial organisation—if the Postmaster-General enters into a dispute with a citizen, that citizen, who may have substantial interests involved, should be disentitled from going to the King's courts to settle his dispute. It is a risk that follows from the whole purpose of this Bill.
    The purpose of the Bill is to transfer from the realm of contract to the realm of regulation making the relations between the right hon. Gentleman and his customers. Suppose that the right hon. Gentleman made a contract with me and he fell down on it, I could take him to the courts, or if I fell down on it he could take me to the courts. Our access to the courts is, I think, clear. It is not at all clear that the right hon. Gentleman, by the use of the words affected by this Amendment, may not be able to

    2377
    prevent me from taking him to the courts if I am in dispute with him. It may be that he intends—I do not know—to set up some administrative tribunal to settle these disputes. If that is so, I would call in aid against any such intention His Majesty's Government. They have recently published a White Paper, Command Paper No. 8274 on Retail Price Maintenance, and I will quote some words in paragraph 14 of that document.
    "To sum up, the Government sees two main objections to the practice…"
    I will not bother about the first.
    "Secondly, the methods of enforcement described above involve a private system of law and punishment allowing no appeal to the established Courts of Justice. The Government holds that only overwhelming reasons of public policy in favour of the practice could justify its continuance in face of these objections."
    That is a Departmental authority statement, issued presumably on the authority of the President of the Board of Trade, denouncing the practice that possibly the right hon. Gentleman may be contemplating in this case.
    Therefore, in moving this Amendment, I do so with two purposes. First, to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman whether it is his intention under the regulations to debar, directly or indirectly, a person in dispute with him from access to the courts, and secondly, if that is not his intention, that the construction that the right hon. Gentleman shall have the power to do so is in fact the right construction.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has moved this Amendment in the terms he has. What we want to do under this Bill is to see that the regulations do not place the citizen at a disadvantage. I accept that completely. I should like to consider the matter further, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment and maybe I can do something on the Report stage to make the position quite clear so that the citizen is not placed in a disadvantageous position.
    It will be remembered that on the Second Reading I gave an undertaking that the subscriber would not be placed in a worse position under the regulations than under his contract. I must carry out that undertaking, and if I find that these words are conferring upon me wider powers than I should have had for that
    2378
    purpose, I shall certainly see that my original intention is properly expressed. In those circumstances, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has approached this Amendment. I should like to get from him one point of clarification. He said quite fairly that it is not his intention to put what he describes as the subscriber, or what I would call the customer, in any more disadvantageous position than he would have been if he had had a contract. I take it from that—and the right hon. Gentleman can confirm this or not—that he, would not provide by the regulations for any restriction of the right which the subscriber otherwise would have to go to the courts of law. Is that included in the right hon. Gentleman's term "disadvantageous"?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I think that is not stretching it at all. Any right that a subscriber now has under his contract must be preserved. He must not be put in a worse position under the regulation than he is today under his contract. I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is quite clear, then, that the right hon. Gentleman is not taking away any right of access to the courts of law which the subscriber has now?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, to leave out from "instrument," to the end of the Clause, and to add
    "and no such statutory instrument shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
    This raises the question of the affirmative procedure for these regulations as against the negative procedure. I do not think I need detain the Committee by going into all the arguments about the affirmative or negative procedure. In the former, the Government have to bring the regulations before the House to get approval for them, whereas in the other case it is open to an hon. Member to move a

    2379
    Prayer. One may argue both ways as to which is the most advantageous to the House, but the right hon. Gentleman has claimed the credit on this Bill for bringing in future before the House regulations which in the past he had not to bring. We give him full credit for that, and on Second Reading, despite some criticism which we made, we said that the Bill was good inasmuch as it did that.
    When the right hon. Gentleman introduces these regulations the House is going to see for the first time a large number of regulations with many points. One was raised today, the question of charging for telephone calls which a customer claims he has not had. That issue went recently to a county court, and the judge had some comments to make upon it. That is a matter which raises considerable interest, and there will be many others which, for the first time, the Postmaster-General will have to bring before the House.
    I do not want to pursue the matter at any length, but in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is improving the procedure under this Bill, I should have thought it better to give the House more opportunity to examine these things properly, which would be the case if we proceeded under the affirmative procedure rather than under the negative procedure as proposed in this Bill. I hope he will give consideration to these points.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am in somewhat of a dilemma about this matter.
    Sir H. Williams: A spot of bother?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, I am not in any spot of bother. I gave the Committee assurances that I would try to bring within the regulations the maximum quantity of provisions that I could and use the other powers—the power for fixing and the power for determining—as little as possible. In a large business undertaking like the Post Office, speed of decision is of paramount importance.
    Sir H. Williams: I wish the Post Office would deliver my letters a bit quicker.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: If all the regulations have to be submitted to the affirmative procedure, I shall have to wait for Parliamentary time. If I had to put into the regulations all the charges, including the charges for external radio, telegraphic
    2380
    and telephonic communications, every time I was obliged to change those charges, I should be somewhat at a disadvantage, because I should have to give notice to the House and find Parliamentary time before operating those new charges. The position would be that I should be collecting in charges in this country all that I was authorised to collect, which would be less than was being imposed by foreign administrations for international calls. Until I got my regulations through the House, that position would continue, and the result would be that we should be losing money over a considerable time.
    If there were an excessive use of the sub-delegation powers—it would be wrong to abuse the sub-delegated powers— there might be a case for the affirmative procedure. If, on the other hand, we have to keep faith with this House and put into the regulations the maximum number of provisions, then the negative procedure is the only way by which we can hope to carry on the business of the Post Office.
    6.30 p.m.
    That shortly is the position. The affirmative procedure is more leisurely, depending upon Parliamentary time, and we have to remember that we have a very full Parliamentary programme. The hon. Gentleman has occupied positions in the Government. He knows how difficult it is for Departments to get a place in the Parliamentary queue. These matters would be held up. We should be losing money on our foreign telecommunications. We should be in the further difficulty that we should have to wait for the affirmative Resolution procedure before introducing a new type of apparatus or a new telephone charge. We should have to await Parliamentary convenience before introducing such innovations.
    I paid great attention to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman. If the Post Office were entirely a piece of fiscal apparatus there would be very much substance in the argument for the affirmative procedure, but I have taken the view since I have been in the Post Office that the Department has not been used for fiscal purposes and that what we have done has been done on commercial grounds. I hope that the Post Office will not be tied up with Parliamentary convenience which will prevent it from meeting, immediately

    2381
    they are due, new charges which may be imposed by foreign administrations and which we have to collect here from our subscribers. Those are two points of very great substance in running the business of the Post Office.
    Reference has been made to the new telephone cord. I was asked why we should not put into the Regulations the charge per foot for the cord attached to the telephone. We are now introducing an elastic cord. Must we wait for an affirmative Resolution from the House of Commons before we introduce an elastic cord at 4d. per foot?
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: Stretch it.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I trust that our elastic cord will stretch. That is what it is for. If the arguments used from the other side of the Committee are to be accepted not only shall I be tied up with the elastic cord with which we are experimenting but I shall have to provide in my Regulations for its price today when the price may be far less than it will be in a couple of month's time, because I shall have to get an affirmative Resolution from this House. Is that what hon. Gentlemen want to do to the Post Office? If ever there were a case of wanting to put a great commercial undertaking into red tape, it is the proposal by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    There is our case. I could extend the number of examples very far, but I will give only one. We shall have to get regulations, I presume, in October—if we are here—and I hope we shall get them through before Christmas. I may want to introduce something, but we must come to the House of Commons with a new regulation for it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that I must wait for Parliamentary time before I can do something which they all want me to do. In a business of this sort, one ought to come along, lay a regulation and proceed. If any hon. Member feels that he does not agree with it, let him raise the matter by means of a Prayer. Otherwise I have to wait 40 days—40 sitting days of this House. If I have a negative Resolution I can proceed immediately.
    If I have to wait for the affirmative Resolution in the present state of business, when Departments all want to pinch a bit of Parliamentary time, I shall have to wait much longer than 40 days. The Post
    2382
    Office is not the Inland Revenue, imposing taxes upon people. We are dealing with charges for service. The Post Office is a business. For goodness' sake, let us treat the Post Office as a business and not as a political matter.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman has put undue weight on the difficulty of getting Parliamentary time for an affirmative Resolution. Such Resolutions are exempted business and therefore do not interfere with the ordinary Government time-table. The right hon. Gentleman knows that affirmative Resolutions covering such matters as Sunday cinemas, minor electoral variations, changes in Purchase Tax and gas orders, go through the House with great speed, often several of them in the same Sitting.
    He was making very heavy weather, particularly when he said that in the state of Parliamentary business he might have to wait 40 days. That is not a practical or a realistic approach to the matter at all. There is nothing whatever to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from bearing in mind that this is exempted business and putting down Resolutions for any night he likes. He is a sufficiently experienced Parliamentarian to know that, and if he does not know it he has a very good Parliamentary Private Secretary on the bench behind him.
    I do not suppose I shall be able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman, or he me, that the other is wrong in his view about the Post Office being a fiscal matter. I believe that Post Office charges are used as a means of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman himself, in a somewhat exuberant moment, committed himself to a somewhat similar observation a few weeks ago. He thought it was wrong. Be that as it may, these are charges imposed upon the citizens of this country by a monopoly body, and they are, colloquially if not in the technical sense, taxes upon the business activity of the country, since very few businesses can be conducted without a telephone. We need not mince words whether we call these charges "taxes" or not.
    This is the kind of matter which is appropriate to the affirmative procedure. The right hon. Gentleman has only to look at the Finance Bill, of which hon. Gentlemen have seen more than they liked in the last few weeks, to see that where a charge has to be imposed the Finance

    2383
    Bill has provided that the affirmative procedure is to be used. This is very closely allied to the general scale of Post Office charges.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to underline the commercial inconvenience if he could not use the negative procedure which he has put into the Bill. No doubt he appreciates that if a Prayer to annul one of his orders should be carried, he would find himself in the position of having charges already in operation suddenly reversed overnight. He is concerned about commercial inconvenience. It is less commercially inconvenient for him to be held up for a few days before bringing into effect new charges than for new charges already in operation to be upset overnight.
    Has the right hon. Gentleman contemplated the commercial consequences in his Department if one night the House carried a Prayer to annul a set of charges and he had next morning to return to the previous charges scheme? The difficulties which
    the Minister of Food found when that happened over an ounce of cheese would fade into insignificance when compared with a whole scale of telephone charges throughout the country; and the Minister of Food made enough heavy weather about the ounce of cheese. If the right hon. Gentleman is considering the commercial aspects, he should remember that any form of Parliamentary control has commercial inconveniences.
    All we are engaged in doing is deciding between two forms of Parliamentary control. Even putting on one side the argument of constitutional propriety and of proper control by the House of a matter of such general public importance and going on to the right hon. Gentleman's argument of commercial inconvenience, it seems to me that from the purely commercial point of view he is running a very big risk by insisting upon the negative procedure, a risk far bigger than that of having to delay a little in imposing new charges.
    I am sure that people outside will be very concerned when they read the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman about the loss of money which might arise from any delay in the making and approving by the House of these orders. It appeared that the right hon. Gentleman meant that
    2384
    order after order was to be made increasing the charges and that he contemplated not one increase but several increases in charges, apparently in the immediate future. If that is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, not only is it very alarming to people outside but it seems an additional reason why the House should retain firm control.
    Mr. Hay: The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House for very many years but even in my limited experience over the last 18 months I have seen a large number of affirmative Resolutions passed through the House without the slightest difficulty and often without any explanation sought from or given by the Minister in charge; and for that reason I disagree with his argument that he would be in substantial difficulty in getting adequate Parliamentary time under the affirmative Resolution procedure.
    The Attorney-General is sitting beside the right hon. Gentleman waiting to move an affirmative Resolution, and I doubt whether he will find that a lengthy debate will be required or that there will be any spirited opposition. In the ordinary course of events the Postmaster-General is unlikely to have any difficulty in getting the assent of the House when bringing forward new regulations. They often pass quickly with a nod of the head.
    The right hon. Gentleman's second argument was that if at any time foreign countries increased their telephone charges, those increases would be reflected in an automatic increase in our charges and that if he employed the negative procedure he could enforce them at once, subject to the possibility of the regulations being annulled by a Prayer, whereas having to wait for an affirmative Resolution would mean that he would be losing money in the meantime.
    That is a reasonable argument but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has pointed out, if France raised telephone charges next month and the Postmaster-General had to bring in a regulation to raise British telephone charges, it is possible that a Prayer annulling the regulation might be carried to a Division and passed. If that happened the Postmaster-General would be losing just as much money and he would probably be in far greater difficulties than if he had used the ordinary affirmative procedure.

    2385
    6.45 p.m.
    As to practical considerations, if the French were to put up their telephone charges next month, surely the right hon. Gentleman would at once come to the House with a Resolution and would say to the Leader of the House, "This is urgently necessary and, if possible, we must have it this week or next week." Does anyone think that this Opposition or any Opposition would oppose an affirmative Resolution in those circumstances? The right hon. Gentleman's point does not hold water.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a very reasonable argument, but if the French put up their charges for international calls, the charge automatically goes up for a person telephoning from Britain to France. The House may not be sitting for three months, and in those circumstances the Postmaster-General would have to lose money on all such calls. Will the hon. Gentleman apply his mind to those circumstances?
    Mr. Hay: I certainly have applied my mind to those circumstances and there are two things I want to say about that. First, what would happen at the end of the three months Recess if a Prayer to annul the regulations were carried? Second—a far more practical point—does the right hon. Gentleman say that he would have such little notice from other countries of such changes?
    Mr. Ness Edwards Mr. Ness Edwards indicated assent.
    Mr. Hay: If the right hon. Gentleman says that other countries arbitrarily raise their telephone charges without giving any notice I concede that he has a point in what he has said about charges being increased during the Recess, but on the balance of practical considerations I should not imagine that that would happen very frequently, and even if it did it would be possible to have some retrospective power in his affirmative Resolution.
    He also said that if he were compelled to rely on the affirmative procedure it would necessarily mean delay in the introduction of innovations such as elastic cord. I do not believe he put that forward in any great seriousness. Does he really say that because he would have to come to this House for an affirmative
    2386
    Resolution approving a regulation bringing in an innovation it would prevent him from bringing in innovations a little earlier if he so desired? I do not think he has the power at the moment to bring in the elastic cord.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have that power already.
    Mr. Hay: Then that accounts for the elastic cords in the telephone boxes around the House. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to bring in innovations of that sort, it would not be difficult for him to do so when he wished to do so and to have a retrospective provision in the regulations to allow for anything which might have happened in the meantime. He put forward a fanciful argument against what is, in all the circumstances, a very desirable innovation.
    We ought to have the affirmative Resolution procedure, for it gives the House of Commons far greater control over delegated legislation. In his Second Reading speech and again today, the right hon. Gentleman has expressed his faith in the necessity for having control by Parliament over delegated legislation. I suggest that he go a step further and give us what we suggest is necessary to improve the Bill.
    Sir H. Williams: My name is not down to this Amendment, but I have listened with great care to the debate and I am in an intermediate position. I think hon. Members have been led astray by the Statutory Instruments Act which assumes two forms of procedure. One is under Section 5 and is annulment procedure, and the other is under Section 6, Statutory Instruments of which drafts are to be laid before Parliament.
    There is, however, another form of affirmative procedure which the right hon. Gentleman will find in the Import Duties Act. It is obvious that if one is making changes in tariffs, in order to avoid anticipation the instrument must have immediate effect. But those instruments all provide that that shall be confirmed by an affirmative Resolution of the Commons House of Parliament within a certain period. Then, if the Resolution is not carried, what was done up to that date is validated, but not after.
    I quite see the point of the Postmaster-General. If he wants to take action during the Recess, he will find that he can take

    2387
    immediate action but, later on, he must come forward and ask Parliament to approve what he has done. It is true it may impose upon the Government the necessity of finding time, though they can do that at the end of Business. Tonight, for instance, we have the distinguished Attorney-General waiting to ask us to approve one of his drafts. We shall probably cheer him and not vote against it. Again, almost every other night the Home Secretary asks us to approve of cinemas being opened on Sunday evening—
    Mr. Houghton: The Post Office is different.
    Sir H. Williams: It is worse.
    Mr. Houghton: It is worse from the point of view of the attitude of the Opposition.
    Sir H. Williams: If it is different, it is different from something else. It must be either better than something else or worse.
    Mr. Houghton: If I have to be more explicit, I would say that the Opposition are much more mischievous about the Post Office than they are about other things.
    Sir H. Williams: I do not see the point of that interruption, which is the only contribution made by the hon. Gentleman to the debate. It is singularly valueless. "Valueless" is an absolute term and means not worth anything. Now, to come back to the serious subject we are discussing, which apparently has not penetrated to the mind of the hon. Gentleman, there are three forms of procedure. One is annulment procedure of which we see a lot, the second is the draft order procedure which we shall see in operation this evening, and the third is that used under the Import Duties Act quite frequently before the war.
    I ask the Postmaster-General to look at that, because in the ordinary way if his regulations are reasonable they go through on the nod. On the other hand, if they are controversial it means that he or his successor has to go to the Patronage Secretary and say, "I must have time." It is worth considering. We try to be democratic in this House. We want to debate the things that matter
    2388
    and we are willing that those which do not matter should go through quickly.
    Mr. Pickthorn (Carlton): I should like to reinforce, if that is not too arrogant a word, the argument which has just been put. I hope that between now and the Report stage the Minister will consider this.
    I think the House should always start with a strong presumption in favour of the affirmative Resolution in one form or the other. I have always thought so, whatever party was in power, and have always acted on that belief. That presumption is surely strengthened where the matter to be considered is a State monopoly in a necessity. In that sense I agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that the Post Office is different. Here the State is with a monopoly and, for all I have to show to the contrary, a monopoly which it ought to have and certainly will have for all my lifetime a monopoly of what, for many people, is a necessity. That very much strengthens the presumption in favour of the affirmative Resolution.
    The presumption is still further strengthened—and I suggest, with all respect to both sides of the Committee, it is irresistibly strengthened—when it not only is a monopoly and in a necessity, but where the State is claiming not to be content with the strength necessarily held by the provider of a monopoly—the strength it has in making contracts from that position but to be given an even stronger position vis-à-vis the customers. That seems to me to be a kind of geometrical progression of presumption which makes each presumption 10 times stronger than the one before.
    I suggest to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they ought not to think merely that this is a Government versus Opposition matter, but that it ought to be seriously considered whether we cannot have the affirmative method, at any rate of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams).
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: The Postmaster-General started his observations on this Amendment by saying that he was in a dilemma. Perhaps the course of this debate will have made him realise still more that that is so. As my hon. Friend has suggested, that this is not a party

    2389
    matter, he should consider it again from the Post Office point of view. On small matters there is no desire to tie up the Post Office.
    The right hon. Gentleman has been long enough in the House to know that in small matters affirmative Resolutions go through on the nod and there is never any difficulty. In regard to larger matters there is a case for affirmative Resolution, and there is some advantage to him in that respect too, because when the Postmaster-General has to bring an affirmative Resolution before the House, he chooses the time, whereas, if he is subject to negative procedure, he can have a Prayer moved against him at any time.
    My hon. Friend the Member for
    Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made a point which should be carefully considered in the Department. Perhaps the Postmaster-General has hurriedly to introduce a charge. If the House is not in Session it may be many months before that charge is open to question by the House. If that charge is then annulled, the Department may be put to considerable inconvenience over that which could have been avoided by an affirmative procedure.
    To meet the point which the right hon. Gentleman quite legitimately made, that the House may be in Recess and he wants to act quickly, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), has suggested the procedure under the Import Duties Act. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in the light of this debate he should look at this question again with his advisers from the point of view of what may well be the convenience of the Department. If he will give us that undertaking I shall be only too glad to ask leave to withdrawn my Amendment.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It was with great reluctance that I came to the conclusion that I should resist the Amendment. Let us look at the thing fairly, ridding our minds of party prejudice. The position of the Postmaster-General prior to this Bill is that all he need do in order to change any charge in the Post Office is to bring an instrument here, lay it on the Table, and it is not debated. That is all. Not a single Member of the Opposition has raised his voice against that.
    Sir H. Williams: I did.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: With one exception. With regard to the one
    charge which is enshrined in the contract, it is fixed by the Postmaster-General and the House has never had any voice in its size. I regard that as undemocratic, as archaic, and without any stimulation from the Opposition I have brought forward a new form of Parliamentary accountability. What one has to judge is the present position and the position proposed under the Bill. I suggest that the position I have proposed under the Bill represents a tremendous advance on what was Conservative practice.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Hay: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that he is only acting now in line with all the most enlightened modern practice, where as before the Statutory Instruments Act was brought in the Government Departments had the power to make regulations which were not laid. Ministers are now generally accepting the situation that they must be accountable to Parliament. That is the modern practice, and the right hon. Gentleman must realise that he is only acting in accordance with what every other of his right hon. Friends is doing.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: What astonishes me is that the Opposition, instead of appreciating that I am conforming to the modern view, want to push the Post Office into the position of an ordinary Government Department, circumscribed in exactly the same way as an ordinary Government Department.
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: The right hon. Gentleman will in fairness admit that previously in the afternoon I said he had introduced a Parliamentary accountability which had not existed before, and that we welcomed that and gave him credit for it. But we are not discussing that now. We are discussing the best form of Parliamentary accountability, in the interests of his Department. There is no party matter in that. We have not made up our minds between the negative and positive procedure. We put the matter down in order to discuss and ventilate it. All we are doing is asking the right hon. Gentleman not to turn it aside lightly.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I ask Members, especially those who have not heard the earlier part of the discussion, to keep in mind that general background. There has been no reluctance on the part of the Postmaster-General to increase the Parliamentary accountability of his Department.
    My second point concerns the suggestion which was made by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) regarding changes in the rates of telephones, radiotelephone and telegrams in foreign countries, which I must collect in this country. These are charges which are varied not by myself, but by someone else. I assure the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd Carpenter) that if there is to be a great variety of changes taking place, they will be changes due to circumstances completely outside our control and outside Britain. A lot of them, apparently, are in the offing. We get rumours, but we get very short notice.
    What the hon. Member for Henley suggested was that if the change operated from, say, 1st August, when the House is not sitting, I should wait until the end of October, and that I should then get an affirmative Resolution and take power to get retrospective payments from people of whose whereabouts I had already lost account. If a person in London makes a call to France during the August Bank Holiday and does so from a call box, how am I to trace him in November?
    Mr. Hay: What I had in mind was this: That on hearing that the French were going to increase their charges and that, therefore, the Postmaster-General's charges in this country would have to increase accordingly, the right hon. Gentleman would thereupon direct, as he has the power to do under the regulations proposed by the Bill, that the charges should be raised and that when he came to the House he would have regulations which would give retrospective effect to what he had already done.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I thought that the hon. Member would at last land himself in my dilemma: that is, that if I want to keep in the regulations all the uniform charges for uniform conditions, my power to change the charge for a call to France would have disappeared as I
    2392
    would have incorporated it, at the hon. Member's request, in the new regulations, and I would have no power whatever to change the terms of the regulations, which had had the assent of the House, when the House was not sitting. That is the position.
    I was influenced somewhat by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). I thought he was trying to face up to the real position. I am not making a mistake when I say that he has had very great industrial and commercial experience and no doubt, is speaking with that experience behind him. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) said that the small matters would go through Parliament without any trouble—that is quite true. It is the large matters which are the things to which Parliament's attention should be drawn.
    The hon. Member has been in the Post Office and he knows that every large change that is to be made in charges is announced in the House independently by the Postmaster-General and can be discussed independently of the instruments giving effect to those charges. That, therefore, disposes of that point. I shall certainly look at the suggestion that has been made. I promise nothing but I am satisfied so far, although I undertake to reconsider the matter, that the procedure I have proposed is in the best interests of the Post Office.
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: In view of the Postmaster-General's undertaking to look again at this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Grimond: Before we leave the Clause, there are a few words I should like to say. We have listened to the Postmaster-General repelling or occasionally evading, with an agility worthy of the hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), a variety of Amendments which have been moved with the intention of protecting the individual user, either directly or through better Parliamentary control.
    The right hon. Gentleman directs what we may call a hybrid Department. It is in large measure a commercial undertaking,

    2393
    but is to some extent also a Department of the Civil Service. At present, at any rate, it is liable to be used, and is used from time to time, as a revenue collector. Whatever may be the right hon. Gentleman's wishes, I do not think he can seriously dispute that as being the position today.
    Therefore, when it comes to questions of control through Parliament, it is a Department with which it is particularly difficult to deal. No one would want to hamper its commercial activities, and one quite understands that it may be extremely difficult to exercise detailed Parliamentary control over an undertaking which has to make quick decisions, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, and which has to deal with a variety of circumstances which may have the inconvenience of arising, for instance, during the long Parliamentary Recess.
    Nevertheless, the purport of the Bill is undoubtedly to give very wide powers to what is in effect a State monopoly, and a State monopoly over a very essential service, a monopoly which to a large extent must go unquestioned. Not only must it go unquestioned by Parliament, but the ordinary user of the telephone has great difficulty in questioning such things as the charges which may be laid upon him or the directions with which he may have to comply.
    At an earlier stage, the right hon. Gentleman gave an example of the sort of way in which he effected an agreement with a user about altering the telephone. I quite agree that in nearly all cases telephone officials are extremely courteous, extremely obliging, and flexible in outlook, but they have the power—and it is the power with which we are concerned, however it may be used—to exercise a tyranny in a minor way over a customer who has no alternative source from which he can get the services they offer. I hope that the Postmaster-General will realise that, although these Amendments have been withdrawn, there is considerable anxiety on some of the points that have been raised. He has given us very fair assurances at various stages, and we only hope that he will live up to the very fairest of the promises he has made.
    To begin with, the change to the new system involves the termination of a large number of contracts. That, in itself, is
    2394
    a serious matter. There may be many people who may be now in contractual relations with the Post Office and who may have points of substance to raise over the transition to the new system. We very much hope that they will be dealt with as leniently and as flexibly as possible. On the whole, we must accept the Clause, but there must be always peculiar emphasis on the rights, not only of Parliament, but of the individual user in his relations with a Government Department like the Post Office.
    Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I should like to have a little clarification of Clause 1 from the right hon. Gentleman. Does it also cover telephonic communication by radio of the business variety? That is not clearly brought out. In Clause 1, subsection
    (1). it is stated:
    "telephone system under his control or otherwise"
    and in lines 10 and 11
    "telephonic business carried on under his control."
    I think that on Report it would be better to amend that to refer to "under his control as far as the giving of a licence applies." Is it not obvious that, if a licence is given to a firm to operate a taxi radio, as in the United States, where there are more than 1,000 of these apparatuses installed to improve efficiency, it is undesirable suddenly to change the, regulations, as this might have very great repercussions on the operation of such industrial undertakings. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is also taking powers to change the regulations under which taxi radios and other forms of business radio operate, whether it would not be wiser to include that on the Report stage?
    I am not a lawyer, but it would seem that in licensing people to operate these forms of business radio he is acting in quite a different capacity from that of operating a telephone service under this Bill. I feel it is most undesirable in the same Bill that he should perhaps change the regulations, which might make it almost impossible to operate certain forms of business radio and I should like the matter to be cleared up before the Report stage.
    Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman has been very fair in trying to understand and meet our arguments and sug-

    2395
    gested possibilities for the Report stage. I only want to say one very short thing. If, on reconsideration, he concludes that the argument about foreign charges is decisive against our suggestions, I would ask him to consider really whether it is not his duty to find some other way of dealing with the foreign charges difficulty rather than the way of imposing on Parliament the procedure suggested, under the hypothesis I am putting to him, procedure the House would otherwise not choose. It does not seem the proper way of deciding our telephonic relations with foreign states, and surely it would be more reasonable that the collection of the charges made by foreigners should be arranged by other means than Parliamentary procedure, whether by the International Union or however.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I can assure the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) that attempts have been made to ease the position but these are matters not in our hands. The position is one of very great difficulty. I have considered whether or not the charges regulations should be made subject to affirmative Resolution and the conditions regulation made subject to negative Resolution. I have given considerable attention to this and the Committee will have seen that I have not lightly dismissed the arguments put forward.
    Radio telecommunications come under the Bill. The taxi radio comes under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and is not affected by this Bill. I think we can agree that this power for tyranny, as it has been described, was given by a Liberal Government and I am glad to see that the Liberals have moved slightly along the democratic front.
    Mr. Grimond: I am concerned not with the power so much as with its use. We could always feel that the power was well used when there was a Liberal Government.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2.—(SAVINGS AND PROVISION FOR CERTAIN TRANSITIONAL MATTERS.)
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, at the end, to insert:
    (2) Nothing in the foregoing section shall authorise the making of regulations determining
    2396
    any such agreement as aforesaid (whether made before or after the passing of this Act).
    This Amendment is an implementation of an undertaking I have given, and I hope the Committee will accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 27, leave out "the foregoing subsection," and insert:
    "subsection (1) of this section."—[Mr. Ness Edwards.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(REPEAL OF SS. 17 AND 18 OF TELEGRAPH ACT, 1868.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman explained the later part of the Clause but, unless my recollection is at fault, he did not explain the first part, and state why, apparently, priority messages are no longer to be described as priority messages. I would not suggest that this was of earth-shaking constitutional importance, but I am a little curious to know why that practice has been discontinued, because it was one with which we are familiar.
    Mr. Hobson: In point of fact it was discontinued some time ago because it was entirely impracticable.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Am I to understand that it was not authorised but it was notorious that it was being done and in point of fact the Postmaster-General was aiding and abetting an illegality not permitted to his colleagues?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. McKie: This is an interpretation Clause and it defines the extent of area over which the Bill, if it becomes law, shall operate. There are three subsections that deal with that, subsections (3), (4) and (5), in which a declaratory statement is made. In regard to Northern Ireland, probably this is usual form—
    Mr. Ness Edwards Mr. Ness Edwards indicated assent.
    Mr. McKie: I see that the right hon. Gentleman agrees. I hope there has been very close association between those engaged in drafting the Bill here and the postal authorities in Northern Ireland. I am sure they will benefit, as we in the United Kingdom will benefit. It is rather different in regard to the subsections which follow—at least it appears different to me as a layman and I hope that any doubts can be cleared away. Those doubts exist as to the possible treatment of the Channel Islands.
    In subsection (4) it is laid down that the Channel Islands shall be dealt with—they are a very important part of His Majesty's Dominions—if necessary by way of Order in Council. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Channel Islands regard themselves in relation to this country as the parent and we are only the offspring. I should have thought that in these small islands—small in area but historically very important—most persons who are possessed of their ancient rights have been duly consulted. I mean people like the Bailiff of Guernsey and the Dame of Sark—[Laughter]—the right hon. Gentleman may laugh, but I do hope that the position has been very clearly explained to those in charge of the postal and telephonic arrangements in the Channel Islands.
    Lastly, and again this touches a question of ancient privilege, there is the treatment of the Isle of Man. We do not declare that this Measure "may" extend to the Isle of Man; we say that it "shall" extend there, which is putting it rather more fiercely than the words of the previous subsection.
    The position of the Isle of Man is very different from that of Northern Ireland, or, as I prefer to call it, Ulster. In the Isle of Man, there is, so far as I understand the position, complete autonomy in legislative matters. The House of Keys and ancient Court of Tynwald have always been jealous of their rights and prerogatives in safeguarding the liberties of the subject there. In saying that
    "This Act shall extend to the Isle of Man"
    the Measure is informing the inhabitants of the ancient Kingdom of Mona in dogmatic words that whether they want to do so or not—I do not know if they do or not—they must conform with the Act. Is
    2398
    it wise to offend susceptibilities in that way? I hope that the Postmaster-General will be in a position to clear up those few doubts.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I wish to ask about two small points. I shall be glad if the Postmaster-General will consider before the next stage, together with the other matters which he has said he will be good enough to consider, whether this is the correct Short Title. I am doubtful if it is, in view of the fact that Clause 3 of the Bill repeals certain provisions of the Telegraph Act. Yet this Bill is described as the Telephone Bill, thereby indicating to persons who may wish to consult the statutes that it relates purely to telephones. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to deal with that point now, but perhaps he and his advisers would look into it with a view to possible amendment before the next stage.
    As I understand subsection (4), no provision is made for Parliamentary control of the Order in Council extending the Measure to the Channel Islands and modifying its operation there. It is the general practice to adopt, in Bills passing through the House at the moment, at any rate, the negative procedure in respect of Orders in Council. To refresh the memory of the right hon. Gentleman, I would remind him that that is being done in the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Bill, which has just concluded its Standing Committee stage; the Order in Council extending it to Northern Ireland is subject to negative procedure. Perhaps the Postmaster-General would look into that point before the next stage.
    Sir H. Williams: This is a very interesting short title —the Telephone Act,1951. It amends the Telegraph Act, 1885, and the original Act of 1868. That was an Act which nationalised the previously prosperous private enterprise telegraphs and turned their profits into a loss within two years.
    Mr. Hobson: Because of the telephones.
    Sir H. Williams: No. They were nationalised in 1869 and started to lose money in 1871. The telephone was
    not discovered until several years later by Graham Bell and others. When Graham Bell and the rest invented the telephone. National Telephones and other concerns were formed. The Postmaster-General

    2399
    of the day, being a monopolist—I think he was a Conservative, but any Postmaster-General thinks in terms of being a monopolist—said, "The telephone is a telegraph. You can't do that there 'ere with- out my permission. I have a monopoly over telegraphic communications and you cannot have the telephone unless you pay a 10 per cent. royalty to the Postmaster-General for no service rendered whatever."
    The Deputy-Chairman: We are now discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir H. Williams: As this is a Telephone Bill which amends the Telegraph Act, 1868, which created the monopoly that I am now denouncing—I am rather familiar with this range of legislation— I thought that I might mention it in passing.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak on the Motion, but he must do so within the Rules of the House.
    Sir H. Williams: In subsection (2) it is stated:
    "References in this Act to any enactment shall be construed as references to that enactment as amended by any subsequent enactment."
    That is priceless. I suppose that refers partly to the Telegraph Act, 1885, and partly to Sections 17 and 18 of the Telegraph Act, 1868, which do refer to those monopolistic practices of the Postmaster-General to which I was making reference.
    Then subsection (3) states:
    "It is hereby declared that this Act extends to Northern Ireland."
    That is a curious phrase. It is not customarily found in statutes. We sometimes say, "This Act does not apply to Northern Ireland" or to Scotland, but I think that the phraseology used here is unusual. We do not say that the Measure extends to Northern Ireland. Here is a declaratory subsection, and my information is that this is a most unusual phrase.
    The Deputy-Chairman: But we cannot now amend it as we are discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir H. Williams: No, but if I do not think it is very nice I might say that it should not stand part of the Bill, and if the Clause does not stand part of the Bill these words will not appear.
    Then we come to the Channel Islands to which some reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). I do not recollect whether he got as far as referring to the Dame of Sark; I hope he did. Subsection (4) states:
    "His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that this Act shall extend to the Channel Islands subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications, if any, as may be specified in the Order"
    The Postmaster-General spent a long time today discussing delegated legislation. Can he tell us whether that Order in Council will be a statutory instrument which is debatable in this House? The right hon. Gentleman does not know the answer to that one. It is just as well that he should consult the Attorney-General.
    There are no words in the Bill which say whether that Order in Council will be a statutory instrument subject to annulment. If the right hon. Gentleman will consult the Statutory Instruments Act, he will find that an Order in Council is now a statutory instrument, but certain statutory instruments are subject to annulment; some are not; some have to be laid in draft. We are not quite clear whether the Order in Council for which provision is made in subsection (4) will be subject to annulment or not, or subject to affirmative procedure or any procedure at all. The Postmaster-General was earlier rather glorying in the fact that under many of the curious Acts which he operates he can do many things without Parliamentary supervision. I do not want to extend his rights in that direction.
    Then the final subsection states:
    "This Act shall extend to the Isle of Man."
    That means that if this Clause stands part of the Bill it will extend to the Isle of Man. I never quite understand the status of the Isle of Man, vis-à-vis this Parliament. Once a year we pass the Isle of Man (Customs) Act; I have never yet understood why. I put down an Amendment to the Finance Bill to the effect that that should not happen any more, but for some reason the Chairman of Ways and Means did not accept my Amendment. In due course we shall have that Measure

    2401
    before us and I will explore that position then.
    I should like the Postmaster-General to explain why subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of this Clause appear, because they require some explanation, particularly in respect of delegated legislation, Orders in Council and the extension of the Bill to the Isle of Man.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I rise to put a question on the declaratory point. If it is not the one which this side of the Committee in general wishes to ask, it is the one which I at least wish to ask a little more explicitly than has yet been done. For all I know, those who are familiar with all this kind of thing may agree that it is common form, but on the face of it one would think that when a Bill declares that something is the law somewhere where that does not seem matter of course that can only be because the Bill itself is of such a category that it necessarily involves for the territory concerned whatever is the proposition which it is hereby declaring. I mean, if it is the law, either by common form or by Statute that a Bill of this sort necessarily applies to Northern Ireland—and for all I know that is the law—then I can understand this form of words; but if not, that form does, I think, require some explanation to the Committee before we let the Clause stand part.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I think the explanation is very short. The peculiar form of words is due to the fact that I run the Post Office in Northern Ireland. I understand it is the normal form where the service is run by the
    Minister in this country. With regard to the Channel Islands, there the form is unusual because the telephone services are carried on in the Channel Islands by the authorities there under a licence from me. The wording with regard to the Isle of Man is due again to the fact that I run the Post Office in the Isle of Man as well.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure it was through inadvertence, but the right hon. Gentleman has not given the assurance for which I asked, that he would consider two points, the Short Title and the question of Parliamentary control of the Order in Council.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am, of course, not an expert but I understand that the Order in Council is not debatable.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree, and that is why I was raising the question why provision was not made to make it so as in other cases? As it stands, this Order in Council would not be subject to Parliamentary procedure, and I was asking why.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Surely it is obvious. If we provide regulations in this country for the running of the telephone service, and under licence give authority to the Channel Island people to run the service there, they must dovetail their service into our system. There must be co-ordination in the telephone services run both by the Channel Island people and ourselves. Surely that is the reason. They will have exactly the same benefits. Regarding the Short Title, I thought we were making history when we brought in this Short Title, because it is the first time in the history of Parliament that we have had a Telephone Bill.
    Sir H. Williams: May I go a little further? It is a bit awkward for the Postmaster-General because we have raised a constitutional issue. He has not told us why:
    "It is hereby declared that this Act extends to Northern Ireland … this Act shall extend to the Channel Islands…"
    and
    "… to the Isle of Man."
    There are three different forms of phraseology. Regarding the Channel Islands it says:
    "… subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications, if any, as may be specified in the order."
    I want to know who can challenge such exceptions, adaptations and modifications? From what the right hon. Gentleman has just told us, the House cannot do so. Can the people of the Channel Islands challenge them? I think we ought to be given a little more information.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: All I can do is to say that a licence has been given for the Channel Island authorities to run the telephone services there. With certain modifications, to make them conform to constitutional practice, the regulations under this Bill shall apply to the Channel Islands. I cannot see how I can go any further and say whether or not in this country we have the right to discuss or to challenge modifications made by this Order in Council in conjunction with the Channel Island authorities.
    Sir H. Williams: I want to know whether the Bailiffs of Jersey and Guernsey and the Dame of Sark and the other Channel Island authorities will be consulted about these exceptions, adaptations or modifications, or who will be consulted?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand the position is that this Bill has to be discussed with them and has to be modified to a certain extent to their circumstances. That will be embodied in the Order in Council which is not debatable in the House.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments.
    As amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

  DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.35 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is purely a consolidation Measure which does not in any way change the existing law.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We accept the assurance of the Attorney-General, which he gives in his capacity as the legal adviser to the House as a whole, that there is no change in the law and that this is merely a consolidation Measure. That we are very willing to accept.
  Mr. Linstead (Putney): Having had to live and work with these Acts over 20 years, I am glad that they have been consolidated. May I say how grateful some people will be to those responsible for this consolidation? I did find one doubt this afternoon in the Bill, and I would express my thanks to the Attorney-General for having spared some of his time and advice in order to clear that doubt away.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bowden.]— For Tomorrow.

  SUPREME COURT (PROCEDURE)
  Draft District Probate Registries Order, 1951 [copy presented, 29th May], approved.— [The Attorney-General.]

  NICKEL (PROHIBITED USES)
  7.38 p.m.
  Colonel Cyril Banks (Pudsey): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 13th June, 1951, entitled the Nickel Prohibited Uses (Minister of Supply) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 1048), a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be annulled.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: On a point of order. It has been suggested that we might discuss this Order together with the next order, namely:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 13th June, 1951, entitled the Nickel Prohibited Uses (Board of Trade) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 1049), a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be annulled.
  The principle of both the Orders is the same. The only difference is that one applies to articles superintended by the Board of Trade and the other to articles superintended by the Ministry of Supply. I think it would be for the convenience of the House and would shorten the debate very materially if we could discuss the two together.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly, if that is agreeable to the House.
  Colonel Banks: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that with the re-armament programme, there is a grave shortage of raw materials. Everyone will have the greatest sympathy with the Departments concerned not only with acquiring the necessary raw materials, but with ensuring that the distribution is such that due regard is paid to all the things for which we need to use those raw materials. Our reason for bringing up this subject tonight is not that we wish the Order to be annulled merely because we do not consider it necessary to control the supplies, but rather that we would suggest a different approach to the problem.
  I presume that estimates have been made by the Departments concerned, namely the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade, regarding the amount

  2405
  of nickel required over the next difficult period. I understand that this year there will be a shortage and that next year the shortage will be worse than this year. Having presumably made the estimates, I wish to ask a question of the Minister through his Parliamentary Secretary.
  In taking into consideration the allocations for use in the future, has due regard been paid to the reduced quantities of nickel which will be consumed as a result of other raw material shortages which will make it necessary for manufacturers to curtail their programmes? For instance, by virtue of the shortage of aluminium sheet, in the delivery of which at present there is a delay of nine months through ordinary channels, some manufacturers will use far less nickel than would otherwise have been the case. Has consideration been given to this
  reduced intake of nickel by these manufacturers, or have the Government merely taken rearmament requirements and the normal usage of nickel compared with 1950 and said, "We have only this amount of nickel compared with last year"? The requirements will be very different because of the shortage of steel, copper, brass, zinc and other commodities.
  Another unusual point is that we appear to have changed over to American practice rather than to have followed the practice which has obtained in the past. I have given the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary notice of the questions I intend to ask so that they might be in a position to answer. The American Order M. 14 dated 8th February of this year, gives a list of commodities which cannot be manufactured. The list of commodities is divided into two groups, those of up to 22 per cent. nickel being contained in one section, and those of over 22 per cent. in the other. There is as a footnote, a list of prohibited articles which cannot be manufactured.
  If we had lined up with the United States, especially for the export market, and if we had agreed that certain commodities or machines would not be produced during a period of time, it might have been reasonable to follow the American system. But we have not lined up with the United States. In fact, we have brought out an Order which limits the use of nickel steels to a maximum of
  2406
  8 per cent. Further, we have placed ourselves in the position that not only the United States, but France, Germany and Sweden will be able to produce goods for the export market of a superior quality to those which we will be able to offer because of the restrictions placed on these commodities by the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade.
  I am sure that it is not the intention of the Minister to put our export business at a disadvantage compared with that of other countries. I am sure that, after a little reflection on the American Order M. 14 of 8th February, and a little comparison of that with the Order which is before us now; it will readily be seen that manufacturers here will be at a grave disadvantage compared with manufacturers elsewhere of certain types of machinery and other goods.
  This Order starts by saying that, as from 22nd June, no manufacturer must fabricate any nickel steels for any of the articles on the prohibited list. Until 1st October of this year all such articles as are fabricated and completed can be sold, but after that date the articles must not be sold and the steel must not be incorporated into those goods. The position of manufacturers in this country is that no matter how they try and scheme to get rid of specially fabricated parts—specially cut sheets of material—and incorporate them into goods, they cannot do it in 12 weeks' time.
  I refer to deep drawn steels, for instance, which are put through presses. Because the presses take a lot of setting up and press in large quantities, sometimes six or eight months' supply is manufactured at one time. It is reasonable on economy grounds that manufacturers should press these quantities at one time. They will not be able to get rid of these quantities in the period specified; namely, before 1st October of this year. I am sure that the Minister of Supply does not want any manufacturer to be saddled with parts which will be
  prohibited after 1st October and be unable to sell them or incorporate them into machinery or other goods for sale. I am sure that that is not his intention, unless, at that date, the Minister of Supply intends to commandeer the whole of the fabricated parts in stock. I am sure that he does not intend to do that.

  2407
  Therefore, there is good reason to suggest that the Minister should extend that period of time, if he can do nothing else, and give people more time in which to use up the stuff which they have in stock. It is easy to visualise a company with large stocks of partly fabricated pieces of machinery or other goods, asking, "What must we do by way of production in order to achieve what is necessary to get rid of our stocks?" In some cases, this may even affect the re-armament programme. People will not land themselves with goods in their stores after 1st October which they may not be able to sell to anybody because of this Order.
  Then there is the problem of the redistribution of labour. If we are not able to use these goods after 12 weeks, the labour in industry will have to be re-distributed and given other work. Further, a most important point is that of the countries which are in a better position than us as a result of this prohibition Order. Does the Minister intend to permit countries which are in a better position than us to bring goods on the prohibited list into this country and to sell them here, or will he ensure that the goods which we cannot manufacture are not imported for sale by those countries which are in a better position? This will not hit all countries equally.
  The United States have a very big commitment from the point of view of jet aircraft. They will require large quantities of nickel. Similarly, we will requires large quantities; but that does not apply to certain countries in Europe, particularly those in North-West Europe, who, if the Minister allows them, will be able to put goods on our market which we cannot manufacture ourselves. That would be wrong.
  When one examines the Order and the list of goods which cannot be nickel-plated after the due date, one sees that there are some anomalies. I cannot resist the opportunity of mentioning one or two of them. For instance, it sounds silly, but in future it will be possible to nickel-plate the radiator of a motor car, but it will not be possible to nickel-plate the headlamps, because that is forbidden as I understand in the First and Second Schedules. It will be possible to nickel-plate the bumper bar, because it cannot be made of stainless steel, but it will
  2408
  not be possible to nickel-plate the electric horn of a motor car.
  One will be able to nickel-plate the hub cap of a motor car, but not the rear lamp. These are the faults which emerge when one studies the Order. If I am wrong, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me. A further anomaly is that one can nickel-plate the rim of a motor car wheel; one can nickel-plate the rim of a bicycle wheel; but one cannot nickel-plate the rim of a motor cycle wheel.
  It does not seem to me that the motor trade can have had very much to do with deciding what can be used in the way of stainless steel and what can be nickel-plated after 1st October. The Parliamentary Secretary nods his head. Perhaps they have been consulted. Probably a lot of people who have not read the Order carefully do not realise what the position will be like when it comes into operation.
  I cannot understand why we have not adhered to what I would call the old system of allocating materials in this country. Why have we not said that we require nickel for our re-armament programme and that firms must have it for that purpose; and, secondly, that we have secured sales of nickel for firms in the export trade since they must have everything we can spare because we still must earn as much money abroad as we can?
  After that, why do we not take the rest of what is left and distribute it between all the firms, giving everybody a little bit in order to keep these different companies alive? This Order will close down many companies in this country, especially those who are engaged in manufacturing goods the nickel content of which is 100 per cent.
  The Press statement on the Order, which is not included in the Order itself, states, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, that in the case of articles sold in the dollar area, we must recover 15 times the value of the nickel in that commodity. It is easy in the case of some products, where the f.o.b. price is very low and the nickel content is small, but it hits very hard the man who is making an article which is 100 per cent. nickel, because it puts him right out of the market. In the soft currency area, we must recover 50 times the value of the nickel content

  2409
  As a result, many firms will not be able to function, but will be put out of business on the 1st October.
  I think that is wrong. I think it is a bad procedure, and, in spite of the efforts made, and I believe that sincere efforts have been made, to operate with the small quantity of nickel that there is available, I think it would have been better if we had stuck to the methods which we have used in the past for allocating materials and had not gone over to the American type of order. In my opinion, this system, which provides a list of prohibited goods, is going to be entirely unsatisfactory.
  In conclusion, I want to plead with the Parliamentary Secretary and with the Minister of Supply and the President of the Board of Trade to give consideration to the position as it is now. If they cannot do away with this Order and operate on the basis which I have suggested, may I suggest to them that they should give more time for the people concerned to get rid of their stocks? It is only reasonable, because the Ministry of Supply does not want anybody to waste anything which they have on hand.
  I ask them to allocate sufficient material in order to keep these companies alive, because they will all be required for the re-armament programme at a later stage, and, if they get rid of their personnel in these shops—and it is the small men who are the backbone of the rearmament programme—or if they close down for one year, they will not be able to get their workers back very quickly.
  Let the Ministries concerned give more time and go back to the old system. I plead with the Minister of Supply and the President of the Board of Trade not to leave these Orders in force in their present form, because they will do great damage to the industry and do no good to the Ministry of Supply.
  7.54 p.m.
  Mr. Kaberry: I beg to second the Motion.
  I should like to say that the extensive nature of the articles referred to in the Schedules to the two Orders makes it abundantly clear that, as from 22nd of last month, a considerable number of articles in daily use in this country are prohibited from having incorporated in them any nickel-containing metal. These articles extend over a wide variety of
  2410
  fields, from agricultural machinery, articles for domestic use, such as carpet sweepers and electrical fittings, to hospital furniture and fittings, various motor vehicles and details and radio and telecommunications. The main burden of my hon. and gallant Friend's case tonight was centred on three important points, which I would wish to underline.
  First, if it has to be accepted that there is, at the present time, from whatever cause—and there may be argument later on as to the reasons for that cause—a shortage of nickel in this country, the question then arises whether this is the best way in which to deal with that problem. I think it has been represented to the Minister by the trade already that there is another way of dealing with that problem, either by the process of allocation which has been outlined by my hon. and gallant Friend, or, alternatively, by allowing metal to be used with a lower level of nickel content.
  I understand that the Minister has said that the position is difficult this year so far as nickel is concerned, and that it is likely to be much more difficult next year, but I think one is entitled seriously to ask whether it would not have been better to allow a generally lower level content of nickel at the present time, in order to ease the burdens now falling upon this important industry.
  The second question, which again is abundantly clear, is this. Has sufficient time been allowed to the manufacturers of these nickel-containing metals and articles manufactured from it? On the face of it, a week's notice was given. Was there an element of panic about it? It is true that the American order in similar terms was made in the United States as far back as February of this year, and that, between February and June, at any rate, our own manufacturers carried on not knowing very clearly the intentions of His Majesty's Government.
  This has led to the proposition that, for the reasons which have been put very clearly by my hon. and gallant Friend, more time should still be granted to the manufacturers of these nickel-containing metals to enable them to complete the work they now have on hand, and to cope with the trade which they have been building up on the home market and for the export market.

  2411
  I can only speak with some degree of knowledge of one firm in this country. In the City of Leeds, part of which I have the honour to represent, one firm has built up over the past few years a large business in stainless steel products. On the other side of the river from this House, at the South Bank Exhibition, there is a large display of stainless steel products by various manufacturers in this country, and it is possibly the vain hope of the people now resident in this country who will visit that Exhibition that they may be able to purchase some of these stainless steel products, which leads me to my third point, concerning the Minister's intentions with regard to his licensing proposals.
  By these Orders, the Minister may grant licences to manufacturers. What are his intentions with regard to manufacture for the home market? Is this pamphlet, which I hold in my hand, entitled "Festival of Britain— Stainless Steel Products of this Country," to be a mockery and a sham? Are we to see a little notice appearing at the Exhibition at the South Bank indicating that these are very pleasing exhibits, but that no person in this country will be able to buy one after 1st October of this year? That is a question to which I think the Minister should give a clear answer to the House.
  Then, what are his intentions in regard to the export market? Many firms manufacturing stainless steel products, not only domestic articles, but hospital and general factory type articles, have built up over the past few years a large export industry, and many of them are very proud of the representation which they have throughout the world. What are the rules by which the Minister is going to judge an application for an export licence?
  These are pressing problems because the existence of many of these firms is at stake. The problem arises of what is to happen to the labour employed. Are these firms, which have built up a specialised type of labour and craftsmanship, to lose their workmen because this Order is to become operative immediately? Alternatively, can the Minister indicate, if this Order has to go through in its present form, what alternative forms of production, such as those required for the re-armament programme, are to be offered to firms
  2412
  having experience of stainless steel products?
  I am told that a large proportion of stainless steel is to be used in the manufacture of jet aircraft. Is there any vague hope of an assurance that if these Orders become effective and the manufacture of domestic, hospital and industrial stainless steel products is to stop, the firms affected will be allowed to retain their specialised labour through having orders for, say, jet aircraft components diverted to them? I hope that, in replying to the debate, the Minister will deal adequately with these problems so as to give some hope to the many firms most seriously affected by these Orders.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I must confess that I have a certain amount of sympathy with the case put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks) and by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Kaberry), but I suggest that the time when their objections should have been made was when the re-armament programme was introduced, because anybody who realised the economic implications of that programme must have realised that this struggle for raw materials by British industry would arise. Here we have what is likely to be the beginning of a long series of complaints from British manufacturers. We find that the key raw materials for important products of the British engineering industry are being gobbled up in the re-armament programme.
  As the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey pointed out, there is the possibility of the stainless steel industry, which depends on its supplies of nickel, having to close down on 1st October. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked what was going to happen to British industry and to the people employed in these factories. I submit that there is no very definite answer to that question.
  If we are going to use the available nickel for the manufacture of jet aircraft and other articles required in the re-armament programme, it cannot be available for the cycle and motor industries, with the inevitable result that those industries will be at a disadvantage when competing with the products of foreign manufacturers whose countries are not so foolish

  2413
  as to handicap the whole future of their industries by having a grandiose rearmament programme. As a result of that position, we shall face an economic crisis.
  It is no use hon. Members who supported the re-armament programme and all that it entailed coming along at this late hour and saying that it is going to handicap British industry.
  Mr. Kaberry: Did the hon. Gentleman vote for the re-armament programme?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I did not. Indeed, I put down a Motion on the Order Paper as an alternative to it. Had the hon. Gentleman done likewise, there would have been no re-armament programme as far as I am concerned. The re-armament programme, like capitalism, contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
  As I have said, this is only the first of a series of problems that are coming along. I know that hon. Members think I am ventilating my case against re-armament, but I can assure them that I am only following up its implications. The economic consequences of re-armament are only just beginning to be seen. The possibility of these factories being closed down on 1st October is only the beginning of the problem.
  What is going to happen to those
  industries which depend on stainless steel, I do not know. All I know is that if we are going in for re-armament at a time when raw materials, such as nickel, are in short supply, we are inevitably going to be confronted with economic problems which will result in unemployment and other things which will affect the future of British industry. The hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey referred to supplies of nickel from America. Of course there is a shortage of nickel—
  Colonel Banks: I never referred to American supplies of nickel.
  Mr. Hughes: Perhaps it was to Canadian supplies?
  Colonel Banks: No.
  Mr. Hughes: Well, at any rate, I am going to refer to them, because they are of vital importance.
  2414
  The main theme of the argument regarding these Orders is that our industries are going to be short of nickel. That being
  so, I suggest that we go to the sources from which it can be obtained. As the previous President of the Board of Trade stressed, and as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) pointed out, vital raw materials, including nickel, are being cornered in America, with the inevitable result that British industry is being hopelessly handicapped.
  Colonel Banks: It is quite untrue to say that the Americans have cornered nickel, and I think the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark.
  Mr. Hughes: I will put it this way. What they have done is to absorb more nickel than is good for the British stainless steel industry.
  Colonel Banks: Including re-armament.
  Mr. Hughes: I am coming to that.
  During one of our all-night Sittings I went into the Library and did some light reading. I picked up a copy of the "Financial Times." I thought it would be light reading, because I associated it with the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken). In it I read a long report by the Chairman of the International Nickel Company of Canada to the directors of that company, in which he said that it had been a splendid year for them because of the Korean war.
  As a result of the Korean war, as a result of the great demand for nickel for the armament industries and for use in Korea, the International Nickel Company of America had a record year of profit. [Interruption.] That was the report of the Chairman of the International Nickel Company reported in the "Financial Times." If anyone thinks that it was wrong he can find out about it from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch.
  I go a little further. The last paragraph of the report was more interesting still, because, after pointing out that the International Nickel Company had had such a splendid year as a result of Korea, the chairman went on to say that they regretted very much that they had lost one of their important directors during the year. The important director that they had lost was Mr. John Foster Dulles, who

  2415
  had enjoyed the prosperity of the International Nickel Company and who was one of the gentlemen responsible for getting us into the war in Korea. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, it is true. Mr. John Foster Dulles was one of the people responsible for getting this country into war in Korea. He was the adviser on Korea, and Mr. John Foster Dulles is one of the leading shareholders in the International Nickel Company.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are directly related to the Motion before the House. He must, of course, relate his remarks to the Order.
  Mr. Hughes: These facts are very interesting to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think they expected to hear them when they brought up their Motion. I am suggesting that if they want to get stainless steel for industry they should approach the International Nickel Company of America and ask the Foreign Secretary to get in touch with Mr. John Foster Dulles; and if they want to get increased supplies of nickel for their stainless steel, which constitutes a very important key industry, let them join with us who have said—and quite rightly said—that if we pursue this re-armament programme we are going to get into great economic difficulties.
  The Minister of Materials has recently been criticised because he made a speech welcoming the end of the Korean War and suggesting that we should slow down on re-armament. That is the only way the hon. Gentlemen can get nickel supplies—by supporting those of us who say that this re-armament programme is going to cause not only political dangers to this country but grave economic difficulties as well.
  8.12 p.m.
  Major Cundiff: For a very short time I thought that the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was going to agree with us, but now that we know that he does not agree with us he will forgive me if I do not attempt to follow him. I rise to associate myself with all that was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Kaberry).
  2416
  With certain reservations we are not hostile to this Order—if we can be satisfied that it is in the best interests of the re-armament programme and the welfare of the country as a whole. We are most hostile to this Order if it is something which seeks to hide a lack of either foresight or prudence on the part of the Government, or if it is only yet another instrument of the Socialist charter which says that government shall be government by Ministerial decree.
  Having said this, I want to make a fair approach to this problem, and I think, perhaps, that it may be some little help to the House—I hope it will be—if I say something about nickel, about its usefulness and the part that it is playing in engineering today. At this point I declare my interest in the manufacturing of diesel engines.
  Nickel is not either a precious metal or a rare metal, but because of the very heavy demand at the present time it is a scarce metal, in spite of the fact that production is running at a higher rate today than ever before. Canada, a member of our British Commonwealth, produces more than four-fifths of the world's supply. Sweden, a friendly country, also produces a little. France at the present time is drawing part of her requirements from one of her Pacific islands, New Caledonia. The Russians are mining nickel ore in the Kola Peninsula, in the Urals, and in the Siberian Plain. As far as I can gather, there is no export of nickel from Russia, and it is perhaps rather significant that their whole production is going for home consumption. There are also small quantities of nickel in South Africa and Yugoslavia.
  A proportion of the nickel which comes
  into this country is in a crude and unrefined state, and has therefore to be processed and refined. Only a very small quantity of nickel is used by itself, and that is for the production of certain small instruments. The vast bulk of metallic nickel goes to the steel makers, the iron founders and the non-ferrous foundries. There is no real substitute for nickel. When alloyed with steel, even in very small quantities such as 2 to 5 per cent., it produces a tougher and harder steel, a more ductile metal, and one with, of course, a vastly increased tensile strength. When nickel is alloyed with steel, and other metals such as silicon, chromium,

  2417
  vanadium and molybdenum, we in this country, from those metals, produce several hundreds of the very finest steels, which compare with anything else produced in the world.
  Nickel plays just as important a part with the iron founders. One of the most specialised products of the iron founder at the present is nickel-silicon-chrome-iron. This is a combined alloy which shows very great resistance to friction and to abrasion, and is known in the trade as the ni-hard group. As far as I am able to discover, that group of ni-hard metals has nothing whatsoever to do with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), or any of his Parliamentary associates.
  I hope I have not wearied the House with this dissertation on nickel. The question now arises: Why are we short of nickel, and why must we have this restrictive Order? Are the Government stockpiling this metal and thereby creating a false market? In 18 months the price has risen from about 2s. 8d. a 1b. to 4s. 1d. a 1b. today, and today we are paying, in round figures, £450 a ton. Is it a fact that the refining process at our command at present is inadequate to supply us with the necessary demands of industry? If that is so the Government must have known of this shortage many months ago.
  I hope the Minister will also tell us whether any approach has been made to Canada to grant us increased supplies of either the crude metal or the refined metal. Is this restrictive Order a precursor to a new Order restricting copper and molybdenum? I say to the Government that re-armament must come first, whatever the consequences, but I think that the Minister should try to balance the many conflicting factors which face him at the moment.
  This Order is a crippling Order. It will mean that a small section of the trade will be put completely out of gear. They may be closed down, and with that will follow the dispersal of trained craftsmen, who must seek employment elsewhere, which in itself is a very bad thing. In operation it is going to mean a reduction in our exports and, so far as the home market is concerned, there must inevitably be very severe repercussions. It seems to me that the Minister's attitude should be, "not how much can I cut these people
  2418
  down, but what can I do to help them with increased supplies?"
  It is the thousands of small private enterprise firms which are today making the greatest possible practical and financial contribution to the welfare of our country. These people deserve every possible consideration. I appeal to the Minister to withdraw his Order for a few months to give the trade breathing space to turn round and try to re-adjust itself to the new conditions which may come, and in the meantime the Minister can look around to see what he can do to give the trade the increased quantities of nickel it so badly needs.
  8.22 p.m.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I rise to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks), who has moved a Prayer against these two Orders, because I am interested in the effect of them on the export trade conducted by firms in my own constituency which are the users of nickel and nickel-plating processes. Hon. Members on these benches who have spoken previously acknowledge the shortage of raw materials, a shortage which is aggravated not only by the re-armament programme but also by the Government's refusal in past months to buy up stocks that were then available.
  I think it is agreed that it is not in the country's interest to cut our export trade, and particularly our dollar export trade, more than is absolutely unavoidable as a result of the re-armament programme. Since the war, there are very many firms—and I include several in my own constituency—which have been fighting their way at the behest and with the encouragement of the Government into the American market and other dollar markets.
  I am particularly interested in these Orders because there is one wide field of domestic appliances where, by the ingenuity of our manufacturers, by skill and craftsmanship and, not least, the finish and quality of our goods and their performance, we have won markets against the fiercest American competition, not only in the sterling area but in the dollar area.
  I support the opinion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Withington (Major Cundiff), who pointed out that there are thousands of very small firms

  2419
  which may well be put out of business by these Orders. It is not the giant firm with millions of capital that is deprived of supplies; that firm gets immediate, alternative armament orders from the Government and is big and powerful enough to make its representations at the highest possible level. It is the small firm which cannot easily switch its men to other work or, indeed, obtain alternative armament orders which may well be driven out of business by the implications of and the incredibly short time-table given under these two Orders.
  The dollar market likes the chromium-plated finish. It will not be fobbed off with cellulose or other substitutes, and if we cannot supply them with what they want, they will get it elsewhere. It is because of the disastrous effect of these Orders upon that very important branch of our export trade—the field of domestic appliances—that I add my protest and join in the Prayer moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. These goods for which we have won markets abroad include a with range of stainless steel equipment in the domestic and commercial fields, including irons, radiators, toasters, vacuum cleaners and refrigerators, small in their individual output but very large indeed in the aggregate and in the dollars they earn for this country.
  If I may say a word about the Orders themselves, it appears to be the design and the desire of the Government to make Statutory Instruments as incomprehensible as possible. One used to level this charge at the lawyers with their "where-fors" and "hereunto's," but the legal gentlemen in Lincoln's Inn are but babes in arms at bemusing the public compared with the unholy three hundred who draft and decide the form of our Statutory Orders. I think there should be a degree of M.I.S.O., Master of the Interpretation of Statutory Orders.
  An Order which tells us what we must not make, which is the form of these two particular Orders, is an open invitation to the "smart Alec" to find out what he can make without infringing the Order, either by some variation in design, by calling it a different name or by poring over a catalogue to find some item omitted from the Schedule with which to catch the Government out until the Government catch up with him.
  2420
  Some excellent examples of the grave anomalies which arise as a result of
  these Schedules were given to us by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pudsey. I believe there is another, where under the Order as at present drafted we may not, without a licence, chromium-plate an electric iron, but it can be done with the stand which is sold with it. I offer that as another anomaly with which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply can deal when he replies.
  Some of the items in the Schedule
  are luxuries, some are essentials. In the present case, where we acknowledge the need for careful use of raw materials, why cannot we say what may be manufactured, and extend, on application, for proven claims? As it is, the manufacturer making an important export commodity, with orders piling up, with stocks in hand, and with possibly large stores, which have been put aside for orders placed this year for delivery next year, now finds himself, almost without notice, instructed that he may not complete those orders, or indeed, engage staff for carrying out this work, until he has obtained a licence, if a licence he can obtain, from the Ministry concerned. So these orders so dearly won may be thrown away, and workpeople may be thrown out of employment unless the employer is expected to hold them in idleness and employ them on cleaning up the works or some such work in the hope that possibly he may get his licence whereby he may continue the firm's output.
  Reference was made by my hon. and gallant Friend to the Press handout which spoke of 15 times the value of the nickel content in the dollar market and 50 times the value of the nickel content in other markets being the basis upon which applications for exports will be made, but it has already been made plain by him how hardly that would operate on firms the content of whose articles varied very considerably indeed. Those with a small content would reap the benefit of such a computation; those with a large content would almost, without question, be driven out of business.
  What is to be the machinery for the applications, and how soon will the manufacturers know whether or not they can

  2421
  continue in business with the industry which they have striven so hard to build up? During the time a manufacturer is waiting he may offend and lose a foreign customer. I believe that there should be some concession in this very rigid time-table to safeguard the very valuable export trade which has been established.
  I add my protest regarding the differentiation between the restrictions imposed upon the American industry and those placed upon our own. We seem to have gone half way in lining up with the Americans but not all the way. We have fallen between two stools, and we have put our own manufacturers at a very severe disadvantage in that they may use only 8 per cent. content of nickel whereas the Americans can use 22 per cent. content. This will give a very substantial advantage to our American competitors and can only help to kill a valuable export trade which, as has been pointed out, has been boosted and advertised across the river at the Festival of Britain.
  If our aim is to get the maximum effective production from a limited supply of this now very valuable metal, could the Government not see that this Order encourages a more economical use of the metal? As it stands, the Order does not do so. We have heard tonight of a new coating which is called tin-nickel, and which is one-third nickel and two-thirds zinc. I am given to understand that it eliminates the chrome coating and should result in a substantial saving in the use of nickel. Can the Minister give us any information how far this new process has advanced, and whether in certain fields of nickel usage it may be employed to advantage to produce the same number of goods for export with a smaller quantity of nickel?
  I support my hon. and gallant Friend in this Prayer because the Order in its present form provides loopholes which hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House desire to close. It does not encourage economy in the use of nickel where economies could be achieved and it will affect most seriously this branch of the export trade which many thousands of companies and industries in this country have been doing their level best to build up, in order to sustain our home economy.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst (Shipley): My hon. Friends who have spoken on this Prayer have made out a first-class and fully-substantiated case why the Prayer should be accepted by the Government, to give more time for the Government to put before us a much better thought out and better prepared statement of what is really needed. I want to underline one or two things that have been said.
  I have grounds for feeling that there is an element of panic in the placing of this Statutory Instrument before the House. That is indicated, to start off with, by the dates. I do not think that the Government can have thought of the bad effect which legislation of this kind has upon industrialists throughout the country. Firms do not know, until they get the details, how the Order will affect them, because they do not know even the full extent of it. For it to come into operation, as it has done, on 22nd June, and then to say that by 1st October nothing more is to be sold, or even supplied, leaves insufficient time for industry to adjust itself to this far-reaching Order.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Withington (Major Cundiff) said that there is no substitute for nickel. That is true, but in some cases it may be that another material could be used for part of the products for which nickel has formerly been employed. Where will those firms be in the queue for materials? Unless a firm is well known and has been on the books of a supplier for some time, there is very little hope of its getting additional or new supplies of materials. These firms will be very badly affected in that way. Nothing like sufficient thought has been given to the effect upon firms trying to find alternative supplies to replace those which are prohibited.
  There is also the matter of components on order. What is the position in this case? What is the position of a firm which places an order, as it has to do, well in advance and then finds that the components come through on or about the completion date? Are the components to be wasted or will the firms be allowed to incorporate them in other products that they are producing?
  With regard to exports, I share the alarm which has been expressed about the ratio

  2423
  of 15 per cent. in the case of dollar countries and 50 per cent. in the case of others. If that is genuinely intended, it is an enormously high ratio.
  In the last few years many quite small firms which had never done any export trade before have been encouraged to take part, and employing a good deal of thought and initiative and taking some risk, they have entered the export field. This is a very good thing and we all applaud it. The Government will admit that the contribution made to our balance of trade by those new entrants into the export field has been by no means inconsiderable. Is all that effort on their part to be wasted? In place of all their high grade work, are we to have shoddy exports?
  We do not believe that this matter has been thought out properly. There may be a shortage of nickel, but do we need to panic-legislate? The Government have given many instances of bad planning. Surely in a matter of this nature they could have thought the thing out more carefully and given industry proper time and full consultations to avoid this monstrous damage, which will in many instances mean a real infliction of harm upon firms which cannot adapt themselves and will have to close down or will be so grievously affected that they will no longer be able to contribute to the increased productivity which we must still have.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. Harmar Nicholls: It was far too much to expect the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), to let this opportunity pass without riding his hobby horse, his policy of rather sordid cowardly despair. I cannot understand how the Government can bring themselves to continue to accept his vote when on one of the most important of their policies he finds himself in such complete disagreement.
  We ought to make quite clear the motive behind the tabling of the Prayers tonight. We recognise to the full that urgent priority must be given to the rearmament programme, but we are not satisfied that all the considerations affecting the industries in their other spheres have been taken into account in the preparation of these statutory instruments. We are discussing the matter now to make
  2424
  absolutely certain that the minimum of dislocation is caused to the industries concerned, to the export trade and to the employment of our people by the carrying out of the priority system. If that is not the job of the House of Commons, I do not know whose it is.
  Sometimes the House is abused and called a talking shop. That is what it should be and what it was intended to be. We are here to talk about things and to produce evidence from every angle, so that by the time what we discuss becomes the law of the land there is no shadow of doubt that we have the best possible remedy for the ills which have to be faced. And so it is to pursue thought along those lines that these Prayers were tabled by my hon. Friends.
  After listening to the proposer and the seconder and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Withington (Major Cundiff), I think everyone will admit that they have brought thought to this subject which will make the people who have to apply the instruments much better informed than they could have been if we had not had the Prayers discussed tonight.
  It is quite clear from what we have already heard that when the present stocks of components are exhausted a wide range of household goods, of electrical equipment and road vehicles will assume a look of war-time austerity that would not have been thought possible when the war ended in 1945. We want to be quite certain, before we approve these instruments, that the amount of austerity which will be inflicted is really necessary.
  The first point that should be emphasised is that this will affect many firms to such an extent that they may well be pushed out of business. For example, firms engaged solely in making badges and ornamental jewellery will almost certainly be put out of business, and pin and safety pin manufacturers will have little to go on.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that in a time of crisis we ought to allow ornamental jewellery?
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member has such little patience that he has anticipated the point I was just reaching. From our experience in the last war we know the great contribution that the jewellery firms

  2425
  of Birmingham were able to make to rearmament production then. We know that their special craft and skill was turned at a minute's notice to making vital components for the war machine.
  If we meet the same crisis again we might well want that same quick switch-over from those same skilled craftsmen. So I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that we want to be quite certain that before we push these firms out of existence, before we allow the skilled craftsmen to be disbanded, we do not bring a greater hardship on ourselves by putting out of reach the potential help they will give to us when we get to other parts of the re-armament programme.
  We have to face up to the fact that if this instrument is applied as it stands they will be pushed out of business. We have been told that fittings for cycles and cars will have a dull finish which will take away the joy of possession in this country and will take away our chance of expanding our export markets. We know it is possible for the Minister to issue licences which will
  keep some of these firms in existence and which will help them to maintain their export markets. We want to be certain that he uses that power to issue licences with realism.
  If licences are allowed only for their exports, it means they will need two production lines in their works, one for export and one for the home department. That would mean that British production costs would go up so much that we might lose export markets because our goods could not compete on the ground of price. So we ask to be satisfied that he will give full consideration to the applications which will be made from these firms so affected.
  A typical example that has been brought to my notice is that of a firm making mechanical lighters. They have made it quite clear that if they are not allowed plate for the home trade their production will have to stop and their export contribution, however small, will have to go by the board. Let us be quite certain that is necessary before we push them to this extreme. A vital example can be found in Walsall. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) is not here to say a word on this matter, because old-established firms in that town are vitally affected. This is the home of
  2426
  saddlery and harness, which carries with it such an important export section.
  There is in Walsall a firm, established for more than 120 years, that have been exporting bits and stirrups. It has been made quite clear to them that their important market in the United States will not take any substitute or iron. The owner of the firm has made it quite clear, I believe, to the Minister that 85 per cent. of their production is on export. They certainly would not be able to pass the test of 50 times the value of nickel in arriving at their export selling price, but 85 per cent. of their export is dependent upon a very substantial allotment of nickel being given to them. Before this firm, more than 100 years old, is pushed out of business, we want to be quite certain that there is absolutely no alternative.
  Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member said he was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) was not in his place. Did the hon. Member give him notice that he required him to be in his place, or are the firm using the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) as their agent in this rather than the Member for their constituency?
  Mr. Nicholls: We can expect the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) to have a rather unpleasant explanation for my reference to Walsall. The reason why I referred to Walsall is that the well-known newspaper there thought fit to give headlines to the effects of the Order, and the local Chamber of Commerce have given reports, which, again, have been headlined, showing the effect it would have on the various firms in that town. I should have thought that that would have been sufficient notice for any hon. Member to want to be in his place and to make quite certain that the industries in his constituency were not having any unnecessary damage inflicted upon them.
  What I am saying is that when the applications for licences are made, we hope that they will be treated with sympathy and that, if possible, the Minister should grant an open licence to a whole series of orders rather than put them to the trouble of having to apply individually for all their various cases,

  2427
  with all the delay and extra work that that would entail.
  I reinforce the point which has been made that perhaps the Minister is not in full possession of details of the full effects of the Order upon various industries, because the many industries themselves have not as yet realised how badly they will be affected. In my own constituency, I wrote to the industries which I thought were likely to come under the terms of the Order. The replies of all of them contain such phrases as these, which I have picked out to pass on to the Minister:
  "We have no t yet had a copy of the Order, and so cannot comment upon it."
  "Owing to the short notice, we have had no opportunity of inspecting the Order, so we do not know how we are likely to be affected."
  "As the publishing of the restriction is so very recent, we must tell you that full implications are not entirely known. Only after close study of the Order shall we know the full measure of its effect."
  If that is general, if that experience covers the whole of the country—and I have no doubt that it does—the appeal that the effect of this instrument should be delayed might well be worth while. It may be that the Minister will have information later that he does not have today.
  I reinforce also what my hon. Friend has said about the difficulty of understanding statutory instruments. On questions such as this, it is a great pity that we cannot have a sort of White Paper to precede the statutory instrument so that we may discuss it in some detail and understand what it means. We could not do worse than take a leaf out of the book of the United States of America. I have with me a copy of the American M.14, which is the equivalent of our statutory instrument. In it there is greater coherence, and they appear to go to much greater trouble so that the people likely to be affected shall understand what it is all about. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are much more ignorant."] They have set out very clearly, for example, the various headings:
  "What this Order does."
  "Definitions."
  "The nickel forms and products to which this Order applies."
  "Application of Order."
  "Use of nickel."
  2428
  and so on. From those various headings one has a very clear understanding of what it is all about, as distinct from the legalistic jargon which seems to surround not only the statutory instruments we are discussing, but so many of the statutory instruments which we have to discuss from time to time.
  I think it right that the House should give consideration to the question of whether we are quite certain that manufacturers in this country, in particular exporting manufacturers, are going to face unnecessary competition from the United States of America because we have placed the nickel content too low. Already we have had described to us how the U.S.A. manufacturers can use up to 22 per cent. of nickel content, whereas we are kept down to 8 per cent. on our products. This by itself makes quite clear that we shall be competing at a disadvantage in the world market, unless something is done about it.
  I was interested to read in one of the very responsible newspapers of this country the reasons for this Order. It is of some value. The newspaper said:
  "It was generally known that restrictions were largely imminent because the United States had imposed them in their country. It could hardly be expected that America would tolerate the appearance of plated and nickel based manufactures on their home market whilst their own users were barred from offering competitive goods."
  Bearing in mind that even this year we are only likely to have 40 per cent. to 50 per cent, of nickel available as compared with last year, whereas in America it is likely to be 65 per cent. of what they had last year, I should have thought that Britain "could hardly tolerate the appearance of better plated and better nickel based manufactures in their traditional world markets from other countries while our own manufacturers were barred by the force of law from anything like equal terms of competition." I am not making that observation in the atmosphere created by the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South, or producing any anti-Americanism. What I am asking is that the Minister in this country shall fight very hard and with all the tenacity he can produce to see to it that in the varied contributions our countries make our manufacturers are not placed at an unnecessary disadvantage with the United States.

  2429
  There is another point to which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can give a reply. It is in connection with the important contribution that diesel car exports have to make to our balance of trade. I know that already valves for motor cars, which are manufactured from stainless steel, are not affected by this statutory instrument. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to assure me that the steel cylinder liners have the same preference as the valves. They should also be made of stainless steel as they have to undergo the same treatment as an exhaust valve in an engine which operates on low octane spirit.
  Mr. Dames: Could the hon. Member read the last part of his speech again so that we can all get it?
  Mr. Nicholls: I said I want the Minister to give a clear reply on whether the same preference is given to the cylinder liners as is given to the valves. I hope he will answer "yes"; otherwise it will create a great deal of difficulty on the technical side of engine production.
  That is the general case we wish to submit from these benches. We feel that only good can come from a clear explanation from the Treasury Bench of how this instrument is likely to be put into effect. If as a result of this debate we have convinced the Minister that some good may come from delaying the effect of the instrument, if only for a month, and if we can get from him a clear statement of what efforts will be made in preserving our exporters as compared to American exporters, I am certain that the time spent in discussing these Orders Will be far from wasted.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Nally (Bilston): I rise primarily to suggest to the House that it is a little unfair for the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls), in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells), to say what he did about him. If we are to have that sort of comment made in the House it is equally worth putting on record in HANSARD that during the whole of the speech of the hon. Member there were ten—I beg pardon, now 11—Members of the Opposition present. It is also worth putting on the record that many of us share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall that it really is not
  2430
  terribly worth while for people with something more important to do to sit here listening to a handful of Tory Members talking about Motions which they have no intention of pressing to a Division because they have not sufficient numbers here to put up a respectable show.
  Mr. H. Nicholls: What better work can a Member of Parliament be doing than discussing this Statutory Instrument when otherwise the House will rise and we shall all go on our respective ways and do nothing in particular?
  Mr. Nally: The hon. Member might well be in the Library studying some of the problems of Peterborough as anxiously as my hon. Friend seems to be studying the problems of Walsall. I should regard that study as being well worth while.
  It is surprising that there appears to be between the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the Opposition not some points of difference; the really surprising thing is not how different they are but how much they have in common, and how often when hon. Members opposite were expounding with great care how important it was to keep this form and the other form of civilian production going, and to continue to make lighters, etc., there were subdued but undoubtedly definite "Hear, hears" coming from the direction of the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South.
  The real truth is that in these matters there is this bond between the Opposition and my hon. Friend, that in their ways all are anarchists, but in the case of the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South, he is a pacifist anarchist, while the Opposition are fighting anarchists. They continually reproach the Government because they are making only "slow and painful pro-gross towards the building up of our armaments" and on the very same day they reproach the Government because in a spirit of urgency the Government take certain steps to restrict the consumption of metals and try to apply the consumption of those metals to needs which are more likely to serve defence than some of the needs which they are serving.
  Colonel Banks: I do not think that the hon. Member was present in the House when I made the opening speech in this debate. Had he been present he would

  2431
  have appreciated that the purpose of my getting up to speak on this nickel prohibition Order was to point out a way in which we could have achieved the same economy, could have achieved everything we desire to achieve but by a different way, by using a different system. I sympathised with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary sitting on the Government Front Bench in their job of handling this matter. It is most unfair that the hon. Member should get up, not having heard my speech, and call me an anarchist.
  Mr. Nally: I regret that I came into the House exactly as the hon. and gallant Member was resuming his seat. In response to his request I acquit him completely of any responsibility for all the rest of the speeches to which I have listened. But If am certain that he would agree that whale I accept what he says, and apologise most sincerely for not being present when he was moving the Motion, we on these benches, when we hear a string of four, five or six Tory speeches are, as good democrats, entitled to pay as much attention to what we have heard as to the one undoubtedly much greater, mightier and more common-sense speech that we happen to have missed.
  The House, in the speeches I heard— although I am certain it does not apply to the speech I did not hear— has been bathed in an almost high tide of crocodile tears, none the less repellent because most of them came from the hon. Lady who does everything charmingly including the shedding of crocodile tears. One argument was that the small man who has built up his business, was likely, by the full impact of these Orders, to be unable to carry on. That surely is one of the risks implicit in a dangerous situation such as we now have.
  After all when this House, with the exception of a few of us, and I make no apology for it now, believed that conscription was a thoroughly bad thing on military grounds, we were overwhelmed, and every single Member of the Conservative Party voted in favour of conscription. Surely, if we favoured doing something with the life of a youngster from 18 to 20
  which we believed to be unfortunate but unavoidable; if we take him away from his home and normal pursuits for three years because of certain admitted
  2432
  dangers which we have to face, surely it is a bit difficult to maintain that point of view and yet talk about how difficult it would be if somebody is not able to carry on with the production of cigarette lighters as he has been accustomed to do in the past. We must have a sense of proportion in these matters.
  I am very surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the hon. Lady, should make it a point of complaint that in the American economy American manufacturers generally are working roughly on the level of 22 per cent., as against the 8 per cent. proposed. As I understand it that complaint was made. It is from far-sighted American statesmen, who recognise the urgency of the present situation, that we have the greatest and most grievous warnings about the extent to which in the future the American war effort may be affected by the extent to which valuable metals and materials are being absorbed in civilian production.
  We are urged by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) in a most friendly way—I do not want to misunderstand him about this—that we must stand up to the Americans. After all, in the last week there was the little matter that Britain is now putting into production a rifle which is admittedly the best rifle for ordinary service purposes ever produced. We said to the Americans, "We are happy about this rifle, we think it is a good job and we would like you to adopt it." The Americans did not, and then from the other side of the House there was a howl of fury because we do not drop production of this new and better rifle because the Americans want to stick to their not so good one.
  When it is a case of manufacturers or traders of some sort, a demand is made that we stand up to America, but when there is the equally important matter of a rifle—it is particularly important if one happens to be using the rifle in the field —and whether it is a good rifle or not, there are criticisms from hon. Members opposite. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War are bitterly attacked and threatened with votes of censure because they actually had the impertinence to say to the Americans, "We rather prefer our rifle to yours. We think it is better for our chaps and we are going on producing it."

  2433
  It is true, and there is some merit in the argument put from hon. Members opposite, and it ought to be admitted quite frankly, that these two Orders combined represent difficulty for any manufacturer who has to use this particular metal. In my own constituency there are cases where quite clearly the full operation of these provisions will cause difficulty. It may well be that some of these difficulties could have been avoided had trade and industry been given a longer time in which to absorb the effect of these Orders.
  But, after all, the strength of that case lies in the extent to which one accepts that we are in a dangerous and difficult situation which might blow up at any time. I think there is general agreement that we live in that sort of situation. Therefore, what could be done in normal times—say, in between the two wars—by way of giving long notice about certain actions which the Government intended to take, is not possible now because we are not living in that sort of world. This country is a small island which does not produce a lot of the raw materials it needs, and there is bound to be urgency in these matters. The Government cannot be blamed for consequent difficulties which arise.
  In addition to the difficulties caused to the manufacturer, we ought to remember that there are ordinary, decent working folk, as one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, who may have to change their jobs because of this situation. The hon. Member for Peterborough has spent most of his business life around Walsall, Bilston and Wednesbury. It is all very well talking now about how unfortunate it will be if working people have to change their jobs.
  What he overlooks—and, of course, he is perfectly entitled to overlook it—is that, in September, 1939, when the war began and Britain faced up to its greatest peril, in the areas of Darlaston, Wednesbury and Walsall we had something like one out of every 10 of our total adult workers registered as unemployed. It comes a little hard now at this stage to hear hon. Members opposite, in putting up a case against the Government, trying to present a picture that they and their party are the ones who have close to their hearts the welfare of the little working people
  2434
  of Darlaston, Wednesbury and similar parts of the country.
  It is true that these Orders cause difficulties, it is true that they will necessitate adjustment on the part of both manufacturers and work people, but if the sturdy spirit of resilience and ability to adapt itself which is the cardinal feature of private enterprise, is brought to bear, then certainly all these difficulties can be overcome. Who knows what wondrous instruments for the national good the manufacturer who has made cigarette lighters may not turn out by applying these gifts, these brilliant gifts which, if he is a friend of the hon. Member for Peterborough, he undoubtedly possesses?
  9.9 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Michael Stewart): We are all indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks) and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Kaberry), for the careful and thoughtful way in which they put this problem before the House. Perhaps they felt a little secret regret that their care and moderation was not universally reflected in some of the speeches which followed from their side of the House. I hope to show that the words "monstrous," "disastrous" and "panic" as applied to these Orders and to this whole problem, have really no relation at all to the facts.
  The two hon. Members must also have felt a little uneasiness at the intervention in their support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I think he will agree that I cannot pursue the much larger issue than the use of nickel which he imported into this debate, as, indeed he imports it into so many debates. On his contribution I would only say that he spoke of the question of who was responsible for the war in Korea. I could not help feeling that his remarks on that topic were directed, as his remarks so often are, to the wrong address. I myself take the view that responsibility for armed conflict lies invariably with the aggressor, and that we are now living in a situation created by that aggression.
  That really brings us to the heart of the matter which we have to consider. Whatever we say about the details of this Order, we cannot escape from the fact that re-armament requirements have

  2435
  created an increase in the demand for nickel which one could not hope to match by an increased supply. One hon. Member, I think the hon. and gallant Member for Withington (Major Cundiff), urged that the Government should take whatever action is possible to secure increased supplies. Of course, there are steps that can be taken in the field of international action towards that end, and the Government will not neglect them, but it would be an over-simplification of the problem to suggest that action of that kind could by any means bring up the supplies of nickel to the old demand, plus the additional demand which re-armament has created.
  I entirely agree with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally), who appeared to be rubbing in to some hon. Members opposite the fact that, if we accept the re-armament programme, it is just no use at all talking as if there were some way of arranging things whereby there would be no unpleasant consequences and no difficulties for anybody. We should hope that, in meeting the shortage, we shall keep difficulties to a minimum, but there are bound to be difficulties, even hardships. Nor can we, as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) seems to think, proceed in a matter like this on the basis of absolute certainty.
  If we were to say to users of nickel, in this or any other measure that may be necessary as the result of re-armament, that we will not take this, that or any other step unless we are absolutely certain that it is bound to turn out as we hope, we should never take any steps at all towards re-armament progress. In a situation like the present, one is bound to proceed to a large extent, not on absolute certainty, but on a judgment of the probabilities and likelihoods, and, whether we like it or not, there is no escape from that fact.
  I turn from these general considerations, which we must always bear in mind, to the application of the details and the procedure of this Order. We are faced with a situation created by the fact that there is an increased demand for nickel and no probable increase in the supply. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Motion asked if we had given consideration to the fact that there would be some
  2436
  effect on the demand for nickel from the use of certain other metals being restricted.
  In framing this Order, and in considering the whole matter of the demand for and use of nickel, we did bear that point in mind, but I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that it is not a matter that lends itself to any exact statistical record. One can only regard it as a prominent imponderable factor. When I said that we have taken it into consideration, that is one way of saying that we have based our judgment and estimates upon that factor, amongst others, recognising how difficult a factor it is.
  We are led inescapably to the conclusion that we have to restrict the uses of nickel and the hon. and gallant Member for Withington, who gave us such a learned discourse on this subject, underlined in every word he said about these matters the need for a measure of this kind. As to the details and working of the Order, a comparison has been made between this Order and the comparable American order, and reference has been made to the effect which this Order may have on the export market.
  In the first place, I should mention that the United States' order, over a wide field, imposes a restriction, not on articles containing a 22 per cent. content, but on articles containing as low a content as 6 per cent. That was a fact that appeared to be lost sight of during the debate, and it means that, in effect, the difference between the United States' order and our own is by no means as great as some hon. Members have supposed.
  Mr. H. Nicholls: But it is a fact that there is a very long list of articles in the United States' order in which they can use a 22 per cent. content, compared with an equivalent of 8 per cent. in ours.
  Mr. Stewart: I am not denying that. What I am saying is that over a wide field, the United States' order refers to between 6 and 22 per cent. Of course, one cannot measure precisely the effect on two widely different economies of orders for the restriction of nickel. It depends on the whole set-up, history and arrangement of industry. But I think we ought to notice that the United States has already imposed on itself quite substantial restrictions in the use of nickel, and

  2437
  that when we impose restrictions on ourselves—although they cannot be exactly compared and likened to the American—we are not placing restrictions on the whole field at anything like a disadvantage in comparison with them.
  I now want to consider certain other aspects of the Order and of the policy for implementing it, which bear on the export question. In the first place, I have drawn attention to the fact that the House has rather tended to exaggerate the difference between the American order and our own. Secondly, if we look at the actual Schedules in our own Order—and I am bound to say I do not find the Order as unintelligible or as difficult to follow as it appeared to be to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Miss Hornsby-Smith); I do not expect a list of several score of uses of nickel to be an immediately obvious document, but I would say that as orders go, and in view of the unavoidable complexity of any document that could be produced on this subject, these two documents are really quite easy to understand and to follow—we find there are certain articles which, at a first glance, one would think would obviously be included in the list, and which are not.
  For example, there are the handlebars of bicycles. No necessary functional
  job is performed by having nickel there. It is really ornamental. But, for that very reason, it is important in the export market, and consequently it does not find a place in the list. I give that as an illustration that in making up the list of what uses should be prohibited and what should not, we have borne in mind the needs of the export market. Of course, as the hon. Member for Peterborough pointed out, and as, if I may say so, occurred to us when framing the Order, we could not require the manufacturers to maintain a double line of production, one for the home market and one for the export market, at any rate, not with regard to that article. With others it might be possible to do it without any dislocation.
  Thirdly, there is the so-called conversion factor which we shall consider when granting licences for export. We are taking this further measure to ensure that the article may be exported if it does not contain one-fiftieth of nickel or nickel alloy if destined for certain non-specified markets, or one-fifteenth if destined for dollar or sterling Commonwealth markets
  2438
  I am sorry if by a slip of the tongue I have got it wrong, but I think the sense of it is clear to the House. We shall permit the export of articles if the nickel or nickel alloy content is less than one-fiftieth of the total of the article if it is for certain markets, and less than one-fifteenth if it is for the dollar or sterling Commonwealth markets.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: Surely, the whole point of the 50 per cent. conversion factor is not the actual quantity but the value of the nickel? The hon.. Gentleman is talking about quantity.
  Mr. Stewart: I should have said value, of course. Similarly—
  Mr. Hudson: Then the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I say he has got it all wrong.
  Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman, when he spoke of 50 per cent., meant, of course, 50 times.
  Mr. Hudson: Fifty times.
  Mr. Stewart: It is, therefore, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, easy to make slips of the tongue; but I think we all are perfectly aware of what is under discussion. One of the' effects of the conversion factor—and this, is the point which the hon. Lady the. Member for Chislehurst raised—is that it is an encouragement to manufacturers; for export to consider what economies can be made in the use of nickel. Clearly; the use of any of the methods she described—though I am not sure all of them can be so rapidly adopted as she seemed to suggest—the use of any of those or of any method which gives an economy in the amount of nickel used makes it more likely that the article will come within the regulations for the granting of export licences. So in that field, at any rate, there is both a provision to, help to safeguard exports and an encouragement to economise in the use of nickel.
  Then, I think, we should also notice that we are engaged in negotiations with the O.E.E.C. countries to secure an agreed list of prohibited articles. That will obviously be a very important development, and if we can secure reasonable agreement on that point, it will remove many of the objections that may be raised from the point of view of the export of these

  2439
  articles. It may be asked why we did not seek first to reach agreement before introducing an Order of this kind?
  Colonel Banks: The position with regard to the O.E.E.C. countries cannot be compared with our position here for the simple reason that we have a very big re-armament programme and those countries may have a very small one, and so their nickel consumption may be very much less than it is going to be in this country or the United States and for that reason they are not going to forbid themselves the use of nickel where they use it for export purposes.
  Mr. Stewart: I do not think that we can conclude that they will be entirely without regard to their obligations as members of O.E.E.C. or, indeed, as members of the Atlantic community. It may be asked why we did not seek to secure agreement of that kind before making an Order of this sort? But if every nation in the Atlantic community is going to approach the problems of re-armament in that spirit, we shall never reach any decisions of importance at all, and I think that the House will agree that we were right, particularly with the example of the American order before us, to take at any rate some steps to economise our own use of nickel and to seek, by that example, to get agreement with the other countries concerned.
  We have therefore, I think, quite a formidable list of measures. Partly in the nature of the Order itself, and partly in the freedom that will be given by the granting of licences, and in the way we shall operate the licensing system, although inescapably there must be some impact of the Order on the export trade—fundamentally it is not the impact of the Order: it is the impact of the re-armament demand for nickel on the export trade—and although that cannot be avoided, we have done our best to see that that injury is kept at a minimum, and presented in a form which is least objectionable to industry.
  Now, one of the major points raised concerned the period of grace during which manufacturers may continue to make articles or plate articles with stocks that they have at present. Clearly, if we fix that period too long we should waste nickel by not bringing in restrictions at as early a date as we ought. If it is fixed
  2440
  too short and one says "We will get out of that difficulty by special licence and special arrangements," we run the risk of having to do the greater part of the work by special arrangements, with an unnecessary administrative burden. The problem is to strike the right period between those two extremes, recognising that what may be a right and reasonable period for some firms and some branches of industry may be quite unsuitable for others.
  We have here a period of slightly over three months. Now that was not a period arrived at arbitrarily by the Government. The making of this Order and the inclusion in it of this provision followed the most careful consultations with the industrial associations concerned. I mention particularly, because it bears specially on some of the points raised by the mover and seconder of this Motion, the Stainless Steel Fabricators Association. It was after those consultations that we considered the present limit to be, on the whole, a reasonable one.
  Colonel Banks: The time factor never entered into those negotiations. No one was aware of the time factor until the Order came out.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken about that, if we are speaking of the same thing. I am speaking of the period from the coming into force of the Order until 1st October, during which they may make articles if they have stocks of partly processed materials.
  Colonel Banks: Was that agreed with the associations?
  Mr. Stewart: That was one of the subjects of consultation with them.
  Colonel Banks: It was one of the subjects of consultation, but it was not agreed.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows very well that neither the Government nor this House ever agrees that it cannot bring forward measures unless it has obtained the agreement of outside bodies. It would be wrong to suggest that we had got their agreement; and it would also be wrong to suggest that we had their disagreement or opposition. I think the correct way of describing it would be to say that there was a general feeling that this was not an

  2441
  unreasonable period, provided there was a willingness on the part of the Government to extend the period by the granting of licences in cases where there were special reasons. What I am trying to establish is that it would be quite wrong to have the same period, without any flexibility, for the whole of industry. We must start off with a general period mentioned in the Order, and then be prepared to deal with a number of special cases by the granting of licences. Subject to that, the period in the Order is a not unreasonable one.
  We shall, however, have to be prepared to grant licences where, for example, in order to retain skilled labour in employment, it is desirable to spread the consumption of the stocks in the possession of the firm or industry over a considerable period; or where—a more common case —the whole practice of the firm or industry is to amass stocks and have them lasting over a longer period, or where the whole cycle of production is longer than could properly be covered by this Order. Those are exactly the considerations we shall have in mind when granting a licence of such a nature as, in effect, to continue this period of grace.
  A number of points were raised about the effect of this on certain firms, and I am afraid I could not help thinking that somewhat exaggerated language was used. True, some firms are likely to be peculiarly hard hit by an Order of this kind, but I am quite sure that it is not correct to suggest that there will be a very large number of small firms facing ruin as a result of this Order. It may occur in some cases, and it is one of the things about which we shall have to take care. One of the grounds upon which we should be prepared to grant a licence —although it would be necessary to scrutinise the facts with great care—would be if the rigid enforcement of the Order would impose severe personal hardship. One could make quite a list from one's own personal knowledge of firms where that might occur, but to suggest that that is a general or representative picture of the industry is quite incorrect. Firms of this kind will very naturally be interested in the question whether they can obtain alternative employment for re-armament purposes, and, in the end, that is the whole nature of the rearmament drive—that there is a shift of
  2442
  labour effort and resources of all kinds from one set of uses to another.
  We cannot, obviously, give a guarantee that any firm which finds itself in
  difficulties as the result of the operation of this Order can have those difficulties removed by having re-armament work offered to it. That is quite impossible. If life were as simple as that, many of our problems on re-armament would melt away. What, of course, we can say is that if a firm is placed in difficulties by the operation of this Order, and if it is competent for re-armament work, it has a very strong case indeed to be considered for an offer of work of that kind.
  There are suggestions that if we had taken the advice or followed the initiative of the industry we should not have proceeded by an Order of this kind but by quite a different method. There is a way of throwing doubt on the wisdom of the method we have adopted and one or two anomalies were quoted from the Schedules as, for example, that of cylinder linings to which the hon. Member for Peterborough referred, and he will be glad to know that the answer is "Yes." Some anomalies are quoted apart from the parts of a motor car which may or may not be nickel-plated. It is interesting to know that when we were discussing this matter with the motor trade they were inclined to the view that they would rather be told, "You can have a certain amount of nickel and no more and use it how you like."
  Mr. Kaberry: So would everyone else.
  Mr. Stewart: What we did in their case was to reach a kind of compromise between 'hat position and the position of listing prohibited uses, on the understanding that they would exercise economy in the use of nickel, and we, in return, undertook to follow very closely their suggestions as to the list of articles which should appear in the Second Schedule. I confess that I do not know why one article on a motor car, which was quoted by the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Motion, is nickel plated and another is not. There we followed the advice of the trade itself. No doubt there were special reasons for it.
  On the question of the approach by the method of prohibited uses and not by the method of allocation, the hon. and

  2443
  gallant Gentleman who moved the Motion spoke as if we had overlooked a sort of old and tried method to which we were accustomed. In regard to nickel, as in the case of many other metals, we have experience of dealing with them only in time of war when practically the whole of the uses were for armaments. What we are required to do now raises a much more elaborate problem, requiring a good deal more consideration—the problem of balancing how much should be for re-armament, how much for export, and how much for home uses, and then discriminating again between certain export uses and certain home uses. Doing that does not apply an old and tried method. It involves, in the field of nickel and a great many other metals, entering into an entirely new process.
  I do not think that we can accept the argument that we have thrown aside a method with which we were familiar. Of course—and this was foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent statement—it may prove to be necessary—and I have mentioned already the uncertainties that surround the whole subject of re-armament—to go somewhat further than prohibited uses, and, ultimately—I am not now speaking of any intention but of what may prove to be desirable—to introduce a more drastic scheme and one more on the lines suggested by hon. Members.
  I believe that it was wise in the face of the present situation, when the rapid increase in the demand for nickel is far greater than one can hope to meet from the available supplies, to begin by saying: "We know perfectly well that whatever method is adopted there is one result that ought to be obtained, namely, that there are certain uses of nickel which are not essential and which ought to be rubbed out." Whatever the method used that ought to be the result to be aimed at. The method we have used does give that result immediately.
  Mr. H. Nicholls: It all depends on how it is used.
  Mr. Stewart: I think I have dealt with how the Order may be administered. In view of that and in view of a the general situation which imposes a need for economy in the use of nickel, I hope the
  2444
  House will accept that this Order is a workmanlike and reasonable attempt to deal with the situation.
  Major Cundiff: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has any hope at all of increased supplies? I take his speech to be most pessimistic.
  Mr. Stewart: I may be mistaken, but I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had returned to the Chamber when I was beginning my speech. I mentioned then that there was some action about supplies in the international field that could be taken, and we were taking whatever action was useful at the present time. I could not possibly suggest, nor can anybody else, that increases in supplies could be obtained in any way commensurate with the increases in demand.
  9.36 p.m.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: We have had a very interesting couple of hours' debate on this matter, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks) is, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, to be congratulated on having raised this question, because it illustrates in a particularly acute form the sort of problems we are bound to be up against over the next few years, and at the same time it illustrates many of the methods which ought not to be followed in dealing with this question. I assume that it will be the new Minister of Materials who will be dealing with nickel in the future, and that it will not be a matter any longer for the Minstry of Supply. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will read this debate and will take note of some of the mistakes which ought to be avoided.
  Before I concentrate on the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, I should like to say a word about the speech of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally). He said that undoubtedly it would have helped manufacturers in this country—and incidentally the men employed by them—if they had been given more time. He went on to say that they might have been given more time.
  Mr. Nally: The right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misinterpret what I say. I certainly did say it would have been a great convenience for the manufacturer if more time had been given, but

  2445
  I may not have made myself altogether clear. The whole trend of my remarks was to the effect that this situation was an urgent one, especially in the matter of nickel supplies, and that the Government had to act urgently. Therefore, the Order was perfectly justified.
  Mr. Hudson: The words I took down were "might have been given more time" and I assumed from that that the hon. Member meant the manufacturers might have been given more time; but I will not quarrel with the wording.
  The fact of the matter is that the re-armament programme dates back to August of last year, and anyone who has any knowledge of the requirements of the re-armament programme must have known that it would require increased supplies of nickel to develop that re-armament. Everybody knew from the statistical position in Canada and elsewhere that supplies of nickel were definitely limited, and that we had exhausted it during the late war in areas where we could get it easily by opencast methods. Everybody might have known that the problem of increasing supplies of nickel was bound to be very difficult, even if it were obtainable at all. The gravamen of the charge against the Government is that they have brought forward this Order too late.
  Mr. Norman Smith: Jobbing backwards, as usual.
  Mr. Hudson: The Americans introduced a nickel restriction as long ago as last February. It surely would have been within the capacity of this Government of planners—who, I would remind the hon. Gentleman, said, through the mouth of the Foreign Secretary, they were not going to be the victims of blind economic forces any more because they planned—to have seen that if the Americans needed to restrict nickel as long ago as February, it was time that we did something about it, too.
  We were told in the resignation speech of the former President of the Board of Trade that one of the criticisms from the United States of America was that we were not doing as much in the restriction of supplies as they were. It would have been better to bring in some restriction in the use of nickel earlier this year. Then we should not now be exposed to the shortage and would have given manu-
  2446
  facturers the longer notice of which the hon. Member for Bilston so rightly spoke. That observation applies equally to the remark made by the Parliamentary Secretary tonight. He gave us the excuse that the Government could not possibly hope to match the increase in the demand with an increase in the supply. I agree with that, but we could legitimately hope that the increase in the demand would have been foreseen and steps taken to adjust consumption to supplies that were likely to be forthcoming. The difficulty in which we are today has been caused by that action being taken too late.
  The hon. Gentleman also talked about consultations with industry. One of the practical difficulties and the
  anomalies about which we have been hearing is illustrated by the point that we have made more than once from this side of the House. Indeed, I mentioned it in two recent debates. It is that the Departments are not consulting industry in as detailed a manner as they ought to. The Lord Privy Seal spoke last week in this House and tried to make the House believe that industry had been consulted in these matters. In fact, we now know that the Federation of British Industries have definitely stated that they did not agree to the method but they had been presented with a fait accompli.
  A great deal of these troubles would be avoided if the advisory committees were made more use of and not regarded, as so many are at present, merely a sop to the industrialists. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to talk about having consulted most trades about the difference in functional use. He mentioned handlebars as an illustration. What is the functional difference between the rim of a motor-bicycle and the rim of an ordinary
  bicycle which justifies one being nickel-plated and the other not? Is there any functional difference at all?
  It is clear that the industry could not have been consulted about these matters or there would not be such ridiculous anomalies. What is the functional difference between a hub-cap, which can be nickel-plated, and a rear lamp, which cannot? It is not good enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to make excuses of that kind, and I hope that in future the Department will take more detailed steps to see that industries are given adequate time to make their comments.

  2447
  As regard consultations with O.E.E.C., both sides of the House will agree that they are desirable and will welcome them. I am sure that both sides of the House will equally welcome the promise made by the Parliamentary Secretary regarding steps to be taken by his Department to see that, as far as possible, questions of personal hardship shall be resolved. It is clear that, with the re-armament programme, we cannot avoid some hardship to firms, but I am glad to hear that he apparently realises the importance of reducing interruption and hardship to the minimum. As a result of that promise, my hon. and gallant Friend will probably see fit to withdraw the Motion.
  9.45 p.m.
  Colonel Banks: Before I participated in the debate, I took the precaution of passing to the Minister of Supply the main headings of everything I should have to say. During the time when I was preparing the material for my speech, I was careful, as far as it is possible for anybody to be careful, to be constructive and to be helpful about the use of nickel in the future. I did not simply say, "We want more than we have"; I simply said, "Let us try to do it the right way."
  I am bitterly disappointed that after 1 have laboured so hard to give a number of constructive suggestions, all I have heard from the Dispatch Box has been a lot of whitewash which does not register with those in industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I feel that that is true and that we have just had something to fob us off again. That is a very wrong thing to do and it is not calculated to get the best out of hon. Members on this side of the House and to gain their co-operation in conserving a metal which is in short supply.
  Having had the Government's explanation, I merely want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it is possible to achieve this. While a manufacturer in this country has prefabricated parts or parts which are cut to size or to a shape for a certain job in a certain industry, will the Ministry undertake to grant licences so that all those parts may be used up? Will the hon. Gentleman give that undertaking?
  Mr. M. Stewart: By leave of the House. I should like to comment on some
  2448
  of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pudsey (Colonel Banks). I have indicated the very careful efforts that will be made by the Government to deal with some of the difficulties he raised, and if after that his comment is that it is merely whitewash, I do not understand why he should now make a further request. If he will reflect on what I said earlier, he will recognise that I endeavoured, so far as possible within the limits of the problem, to meet some of the difficulties he raised, and I do not think he has yet given proper consideration to that.
  We have already foreseen that manufacturers may be in the position which he has described, and that is one of the grounds on which licences will be granted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate that we are not saying that every manufacturer who comes forward and claims that certain things apply to him will get a licence merely for the asking; we begin by saying that there are certain classes of grounds and reasons in respect of which licences shall be granted. The ground he has described would be one of them.
  Colonel Banks: In view of the hon. Gentleman's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  INEDUCABLE CHILDREN
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]
  9.50 p.m.
  Mr. Redmayne: I have been accused of choosing an unduly long and unwieldy subject for debate, the care of ineducable and educationally subnormal children. I would have preferred to discuss it under its general title of the care of backward children, but that would have entailed the presence of a representative of the Ministry of Education to cover the educationally subnormal, of the Ministry of Health to cover the ineducable, and of the Home Office to cover delinquents of either class. It was quite clear that I should have to choose one of the other because of the short time available.

  2449
  Therefore, since the delinquent class was dealt with adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) on 2nd May, and since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education on that occasion made a favourable reply in regard to educationally subnormal children, I have chosen to discuss the problem of ineducable children. I am grateful for the attendance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and for his ready acceptance of a rather long list of questions I have sent him. However,
  although I am forced to deal with this one class of backward children. I do not accept that the division of backward children into watertight compartments is necessarily either administratively sound or in the best interests of the children concerned.
  I am no expert on this subject. My interest in it has arisen from one case. It so happens that the father in this case was a great fighter and has made himself a champion of the cause of the backward child. It is at his request that I am trying to make public certain views on this matter. It is a request which no hon. Member could refuse if it were put to him.
  The first thing I should do is to discuss how a backward child comes to be classified as ineducable. Normally the first step, assuming that the child has got to school and is intelligent to that extent, is that, probably on the report of the head teacher, the child is examined by the school medical officer and undergoes as part of that examination an intelligence test. It is true to say that as a result of that test and of the examination at that moment the child is classified either as educationally subnormal, thereby remaining the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, or is classified as ineducable and becomes the responsibility of the Ministry of Health.
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether in his opinion this drastic division at one point of time really does justice to the borderline case between the two. I also ask whether he is satisfied that at the present moment a factor in fixing the dividing line between the two classes is not possibly a shortage of facilities available to the Minister for dealing with the educationally subnormal child. That would be a perfectly understandable weak-
  2450
  ness of a dual system, and it seems to me —and it is put to me—that there is some tendency to ease the burden on the expenses of the Ministry of Education by casting them on to the Ministry of Health. I should like to know whether there is any foundation in that suggestion.
  As we are informed, there are some 17,000 educationally subnormal children in special schools and some 11,500 await admission, this at least gives some point to the suggestion that the Ministry of Education already have sufficient worries and would be ready enough to pass some of that responsibility to the Ministry of Health, and in fact do so pass it by the standard on which these children are judged.
  I pass now to the ineducable child. Assuming that the parent has no objection to the child being declared ineducable, and does not state any objection within 14 days, that child becomes the responsibility of the local health authority and from then on either can be cared for at home, in so far as that is possible, or can go to a daily occupation centre, in so far as it has been possible to provide those centres; or the child can be allocated a vacancy for residential institutional treatment by the regional hospital board, or, lastly, a few cases can be treated in private homes.
  I shall not say much about training at home. Quite obviously, that depends upon the social conditions in the home and on the ability of the parents to accept the very heavy responsibilities of guiding the training of the child. Neither shall I say much about occupation centres. I hope we shall hear from the Parliamentary Secretary what is being done and what, possibly, can be done. But as regards vacancies in institutions and hospitals, I would make three points.
  The first point, which in my ignorance I make in all humility, is that it is put to me that the decision as to whether a child should receive hospital or institutional treatment is based largely on the social and economic conditions in the child's home, and not so much on the question of whether that ineducable child will or will not benefit from specialised treatment in an institution. I realise how very difficult that problem is, and I put the point with some inward doubt, but I put it because I am asked to do so, as to whether there is any prejudice in

  2451
  favour of the social conditions rather than the condition of the child and whether that is regarded as a desirable point.
  As far as hospital vacancies are concerned, the local health authority has lost the power to allocate vacancies to institutions. It is perfectly true that regional hospital boards in the different regions have very varying facilities and very wide responsibilities. The Sheffield Board, for example, has, I think, 17 local authorities to which it is responsible. Would it not be better that there should be some national assessment of what is required in the matter of hospital and institutional vacancies, and should not local health authorities have some direct allocation made to them or some direct power of allocation in their hands to allot vacancies to those cases which they consider to be most urgent?
  It is true to say—in my own county this is somewhat of a sore point—that in the past many local health authorities were progressive in providing accommodation and now find themselves deprived of any particular privilege in regard to their past progress and initiative; whereas those who in the old days were less progressive are now getting very much the better end of the stick. Regional hospital boards are dealing with things—with buildings, staff, administration, money and so forth —whereas the local health authority is dealing with persons.
  It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Dr. Broughton.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

  INEDUCABLE CHILDREN
  10.2 p.m.
  Mr. Redmayne: I was discussing the question of the allocation of vacancies to hospitals and institutions and saying that the regional boards deal with things and
  2452
  the local authorities with people and places. Without elaborating that point further, having rather lost my thread of it, I would say that it seems there is a case for closer integration between authorities and hospital boards, and even possibly for giving back to local health authorities, not necessarily the control of their own institutions, but at least some control of the allocation of vacancies in the institutions which were originally fostered by their enterprise and initiative.
  Another point I wish to make in regard to local health authorities is that they have lost, at least under this form of administration, any power to make monetary grants to assist parents who are able and willing to pay something towards the treatment of their ineducable children in such private homes as exist. Admittedly they are not very great in number. By the same token, the power to give monetary assistance could be applied to parents willing to band together to provide something which would be an equivalent of an occupational centre where that might be convenient and possible. I feel that if there was power to grant monetary assistance by local authorities it might help at least to reduce some of the weight of the problem.
  I wish to ask some questions about the size of this problem and the numbers involved. If my figures are right there are some 7,000 children already in institutions and some 3,500 dealt with in occupational centres. I think I am right in saying that some 14,000 are simply under supervision at home. I should like to know how many children are awaiting admission to hospitals. I do not believe that information has been given; I certainly cannot find it. Certain inquiries have been made from regional hospital boards with at least an interesting result. I am going to quote figures, not in any way as a criticism of regional hospital boards, but to bulid up a picture of how big is the problem.
  In the following regions these are the figures which have been obtained: Sheffield 430, Manchester 390, Leeds 210, South-West Metropolitan 390, North-West Metropolitan 350, North-East Metropolitan 226, Newcastle 212, Liverpool 118, East Anglian 68, a total of nearly 2,500. Add to that a number of regions which for various reasons, no doubt very good, were unable to give

  2453
  that information, and it would appear that the number of children awaiting admission to hospitals must be well over 3,000. Again I stress that that is no criticism of the hospital boards. My figures may well vary in date and exact content, but they are so far as I know correct. How many, according to the Minister, are waiting?
  How many more children, and this is important, are suitable for admission to hospital but are simply not counted as waiting because the position is so hopeless? That might produce a very interesting answer. Thirdly, how far is this waiting list for hospital treatment matched by a similar waiting list for occupational centres? So much for those questions.
  There is also the question of the whole problem of how many ineducable children there are in this country. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm whether more than 3,000 children every year are being declared ineducable and are being put under the care of the Ministry of Health. The total number of those who have been so handed to the health authority in the last 11 years is 35,000. Therefore, arising out of that 11 years, there are 35,000 children today between the ages of 5 and 16 who are involved in this problem which is the responsibility of the Ministry.
  That total is probably larger because in occupational centres and hospitals there are children under five and over 16—if one calls those of that age children. Therefore, although by the figures which I gave earlier as to where these children are, I can account for over 24,000, there are over 35,000 in the country. I should like to know whether where the balance of those children for whom I have not accounted are and also whether that is in fact the size of the problem that the Minister has to tackle.
  We must know these figures without any question, and until they are publicly known—I am not speaking now of the people who do such valiant work in this problem but the general public—people simply cannot realise what the problem is. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what progress has been made and what progress is planned to deal with this problem.
  I ask and hope specifically that there will be a complete review of it, not only
  2454
  the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, that is in relation to the ineducable children, but also the steps taken in the broad sense, including all backward children. The parents of these children say, "Our children cannot be educated but we are entitled to our share of the general expenditure on education. What do you intend to do in compensation?" That is a fair question. Are these ineducable children getting a fair share of the money spent on education? They are cut off from the Ministry of Education, they are dealt with by the Ministry of Health. Do they get a fair proportion of the expenditure? That question should be answered. Without a review of the problem as a whole it cannot be answered.
  Lastly, I would say that I realise that it is very easy to clamour for public expenditure. Of course, given the right economic conditions, a great deal could be done to solve this problem. At the same time I would say that it will never be solved by this or any other Government unless the attempt to solve it starts off on the right foot. I believe very strongly that the right way to start off is to regard it as one problem, the whole' problem of the backward child.
  I know that from the Parliamentary Secretary we shall get sympathy, some account of progress and certain figures. But I hope also we shall get an indication that the whole of this matter is to be the subject of study by the Government as to how these really appalling numbers can be reduced.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mrs. Braddock: I am pleased to take part in this debate, because Liverpool has a very particular problem of its own. I should like to ask what progress has been made by the regional hospital boards in supplying the necessary institutional accommodation for children who are considered to be ineducable, and who are handed over to the Ministry of Health or the regional hospital boards to be provided with accommodation?
  At the council proceedings in Liverpool we always have some statement of the situation, and I was appalled to discover that at the moment there are 70, children in the highest grade of mental

  2455
  deficiency, all of whom have been indicted in the courts, and who are actually still at home awaiting accommodation in an institution. This is a very human problem. The parents of these children are very reluctant to make a song about it, because of the personal aspect of these cases. I could quote a number of cases where these children are completely out of hand and are in families where there are younger children. The parents dare not leave the children in case some physical harm comes to the younger children.
  Supposing anything does happen, who will take the responsibility? The parent cannot do so. They are only maintaining the children until those responsible have taken the necessary action to find the type of accommodation required by the children. I have been responsible for having conferences with the local authority and the regional hospital board, and while there is a lot of sympathy we are getting nothing done at all. No urgent effort is being made by the appropriate authority to take the responsibility for these children. I am always concerned and am scared about the situation in Liverpool, knowing the cases there, many of them individually.
  They are, as the Minister knows, in certain categories—and on 31st May there were 70 in the highest category in Liverpool—the most dangerous mentally defective children incapable of being educated, all of whom had been indicted of some offence. These 70 had been waiting for months for some sort of accommodation. In class 2, there are 14; in class 1 seven, and in the lowest class, where perhaps the parents could manage with a bit of extra supervision by the mental welfare authorities, there are two.
  I inquired of the medical officer of health and found that during the last month the total number of vacancies allocated in Liverpool was six. So we are in a position of having about 80 children who are at home and their parents are, in desperate circumstances, trying to control them. I do not believe the regional hospital boards are paying sufficient attention to this matter.
  I think that the Ministry of Health should get some definite indication as to the size and classification of the
  2456
  problem. I do not consider there is sufficient classification, because there must be similar circumstances in other cities besides Liverpool. It is a problem we are facing at this moment and the Ministry of Health should give some direction to the regional hospital boards.
  It is anti-social that children who are in this condition through no fault of their own should be the responsibility of the parents and cause worry, misery, trouble and upset in their homes, when the local authority have handed the responsibility to the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health ought to insist on a complete national review of the situation. Where there are cases of the highest degree of urgency, some immediate and special steps should be taken to relieve the parents of the difficult responsibility of trying to control these children.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Shepherd (Cheadle): I support the remarks already addressed to the House. I have been interested in this problem for some time. Last month I took a deputation of hon. Members from both sides of the House to see the Minister of Health, and there we discussed the problem at large. I want to stress the fact that there is the most urgent need for emergency accommodation. Unless one has had experience of the effect that these children have in their homes, one cannot visualise the amount of human misery that is caused. I am convinced that, by and large, both the administrative bodies, the people responsible such as the regional hospital boards, and the public should share this problem. It is an unpleasant one to which many people do not want to face up, but we must face up to it. We must take desperate measures.
  I have urged on the Minister of Health that he should lower the standards of the institutions. We must use hutments and buildings of that kind. We must increase the number of occupational centers. It is tragic to think that today the number of occupational centers is lower than it was before the war. We must try to get parents interested in this problem. If we can organize an advisory service to give some instruction to the parents, that will be a great help. I urge that this problem should be treated with urgency.

  2457
  I am convinced that it has not been given sufficient attention by the authorities concerned.
  It really is a disgrace to our country that we have thousands and thousands of children who are having a damaging effect upon their brothers and sisters and who are still living in their own homes and making the lives of others a misery. It is time we did something about it. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say that, instead of waiting for the regional hospital boards and depending upon this dual administration, the Ministry intend not only to direct public opinion to the urgent need to do something, but that they intend to do something themselves.
  10.19 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop) rose—
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I speak for one minute?
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I regret that I cannot give way. I have been left with very little time in which to answer the many questions asked about what is an exceptionally important problem. I was anxious that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) should have the opportunity to say a few words because of the very great interest which he has taken in this matter with many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the proposals which he has put forward with other hon. Members.
  This serious problem is not new. It has, unhappily, been with us for many years both before and since the war. It is one which has increased in its apparent urgency, because now many cases are coming to light which were cloaked and not known before. It is perhaps one good feature of the position that today parents are not as anxious as they were at one time to cloak what used to be regarded as an element of shame. Although that has meant an added burden upon us, it is one which we should accept and which we should not in any way be anxious to discard or pass on to anyone else.
  In this problem of the care of the ineducable child, we do face the general problem of how to provide accommodation for them, both in occupation centres
  2458
  and in more institutional accommodation; but we also come up against the problem of staff. There are empty beds which we would wish to see being used in institutions for children, and, of course, for other mental defectives as well, but we cannot use them at present because of the lack of staff. I want to insist that it is not only a question of additional accommodation, but that it is also one of the need for more staff.
  I want to deal in some detail with the points raised by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Redmayne), and I will probably also be mentioning some of the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock). First, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe asked me whether the Ministry of Education was, in fact, passing over too many cases to the Ministry of Health. Were they setting too high a standard, and were children being regarded as ineducable when they could very well be accepted in special schools were there enough accommodation? I do not believe that to be true at all. There is, in fact, no connection between the problem of the lack of accommodation regarding school places and the decision about the category of the child. It is true that there is a very serious lack of special school accommodation, which is referred to in the latest Report of the Ministry of Education, which stresses the urgent need for much more provision.
  I am glad to say that a great deal has been done, and since the end of the war, I understand, another 4,000 places have been provided for the backward child and the sub-normal child. A further 1,000 places are in course of preparation, and they will go some way to help to meet the problem to which the hon. Member referred.
  Mr. James Johnson (Rugby): Would my hon. Friend tell us what is the dividing line between a sub-normal child and an ineducable child?
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I cannot spend the rest of the evening discussing the actual categories; it would be an unfair use of the time that remains to me. The decision is taken after medical examination of each case, and the provision of an, opportunity for an appeal to be made to the Minister of Education. Subsequent
  to the passing of the 1948 Education Act.

  2459
  there has been the opportunity for a further review of the cases at a later period, and cases can come back into the educational field when they are thought to be suitable for ordinary educational treatment. In our view, that means that there is little danger of a child being regarded as ineducable if, in fact, it would be quite possible to deal with the case by special school treatment.
  The next point which the hon. Gentleman raised, and I am grateful to him for giving me advance notice of some of the points he was going to make, concerned the importance of giving priority for institutional accommodation. There is no doubt that social urgency is one of the most important factors that has to be borne in mind, for the very reason mentioned by my hon. Friend, and, of course, the home conditions are very important. I recently visited several institutions, the medical superintendents of which are very anxious, because they have a very high proportion of admissions of the category of case for which, medically, perhaps, very little can be done, but in which, socially, it is most urgently desirable that the child should be taken away from the home because of the particular circumstances of the case.
  I would say here that in most areas it is left to the regional hospital board itself to determine the final priorities of admission. But in many regional hospital board areas they leave it to the institutions to decide upon priorities. The practice varies from area to area. We have a particularly severe problem in Liverpool and in the whole of the area covered by the Liverpool Regional Hospital Board, because of the desperate lack of accommodation in that area. In fact, we have to regard the Manchester and Liverpool Regional Hospital Boards' areas as one area for the purpose of admission. That must inevitably mean, I am afraid, that there is a more urgent need in that area for additional accommodation than, perhaps, anywhere else, although that is not to say there is not urgent need elsewhere.
  That is why we have allocated out of national funds special sums for new accommodation in that area, in addition to the ordinary allocations to the regional hospital boards. We have made special provision to start building for the Liverpool Regional Hospital Board area this
  2460
  year, and I hope it will be possible to go forward rapidly with that building in order to ease somewhat their particularly difficult circumstances.
  I was asked whether any sub-allocation of vacancies could be made to local authorities. The point was made that some local authorities did better than others in the past, that they were more vigorous and more progressive in this regard, and that it was unfair to them that their foresight should now benefit other areas. But surely we must have regard here not so much to the local authority as to the need of the children and of the home. It is not their fault that the local authority did not make provision in the past. Therefore, I think it right that the regional hospital board, as an authority with a wider purview, should have the determination of priorities. I think it necessary to try to see that the most urgent cases of need are given first attention.
  I very well know what desperate tragedy there is in many homes, not only in Liverpool, but in other places. It is a heartrending problem on many occasions when we have to turn down applications, for unhappily the vacancies in all these institutions are so very rare. It is not as though there were a steady number of discharges which would provide early vacancies. In most institutions, very few vacancies occur.
  I was also asked whether there should not be a system of grants to private institutions. Of course, regional hospital boards can and do make contracts with private institutions for the provision of extra places. In fact, I understand that for the country as a whole—and this does not apply only to children, but to all cases of mental deficiency—some 1,500 are at present contracted for in private institutions. In the Manchester region there are 245, of which a proportion are children's cases.
  I was also asked about numbers. It is true that in the past we have not regarded the defective child's problem as really distinct from the broad problem of mental deficiency n all the age groups of the population. I think it would be quite wrong to suggest that the backward child is within this range. It is quite certain that the mentally defective child is a distinct and separate problem and needs to be treated by a separate autho-

  2461
  rity in a different way from the ordinary backward child. It would be quite wrong to suggest that it should come under any authority dealing with children as one class because there is need for special consideration.
  Finally, I want the House to know that we are very much concerned with this problem. I am anxious to get fuller figures and information, which I will communicate to the hon. Gentleman. We have as a Ministry urged regional hospital boards to put a certain definite proportion of their capital allocation, which is, alas, far too small, to this sort of purpose. We have been vigorously following that up with all regional hospital boards. I do not mean to imply by that that regional hospital boards are not anxious to do this work. I am sure they are, but
  2462
  they have too many pressures upon them, and are, unfortunately, unable to do as much as we would all wish. We are ensuring that the boards shall use a definite proportion of their capital allocation for this purpose, and we are setting aside additional sums for urgent cases in certain areas of the country.
  I hope the House will gather from what I have said that we are by no means complacent, that we regard the matter as one of the most tragic problems, and that we hope to make a still greater contribution towards solving it in future years.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

POST OFFICE
  Telephones (Sharing)
  Telephones (Sharing)
  Troops, Austria (Letters)
  Troops, Austria (Letters)
  CIVIL AVIATION (TRANSPORT PILOTS)
  CIVIL AVIATION (TRANSPORT PILOTS)
  ERITREA (ADMINISTRATION)
  ERITREA (ADMINISTRATION)
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL DISPUTE
  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL DISPUTE
  TURKEY AND GREECE (NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY)
  TURKEY AND GREECE (NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY)
  CHINA (BROADCASTS FROM MALAYA)
  CHINA (BROADCASTS FROM MALAYA)
  KOREA (PRESIDENT SYNGMAN RHEE)
  KOREA (PRESIDENT SYNGMAN RHEE)
  GERMANY (PRE-WAR DEBTS)
  GERMANY (PRE-WAR DEBTS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Argentine Beef
  Argentine Beef
  Casualty Cattle (Prices)
  Casualty Cattle (Prices)
  Eggs, Chichester
  Eggs, Chichester
  Beef Hides (Price)
  Beef Hides (Price)
  Sweet Ration
  Sweet Ration
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (FOREIGN LANGUAGE CATALOGUES)
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (FOREIGN LANGUAGE CATALOGUES)
MALAYA AND SINGAPORE
  Ophthalmic Services
  Ophthalmic Services
  Blind Population
  Blind Population
  War Council (Planters' Representative)
  War Council (Planters' Representative)
  Cocos Islands (Transfer)
  Cocos Islands (Transfer)
MAURITIUS
  Sugar Cane Research
  Sugar Cane Research
  Sacking (Aloe Fibre)
  Sacking (Aloe Fibre)
  TANGANYIKA (FOOD CORPORATION SCHEMES)
  TANGANYIKA (FOOD CORPORATION SCHEMES)
  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (EYE HOSPITALS)
  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (EYE HOSPITALS)
  WEST AFRICA (BLINDNESS)
  WEST AFRICA (BLINDNESS)
  JAMAICA (SICKNESS)
  JAMAICA (SICKNESS)
  HONG KONG AND INDIA (EXPORTS TO CHINA)
  HONG KONG AND INDIA (EXPORTS TO CHINA)
ROYAL NAVY
  Discharges by Purchase
  Discharges by Purchase
  H.M.S. "Kenya" (Foreign Service)
  H.M.S. "Kenya" (Foreign Service)
  H.M. Submarine "Affray"
  H.M. Submarine "Affray"
  INSECTICIDES
  INSECTICIDES
  AGRICULTURE (SHEEP WORRYING)
  AGRICULTURE (SHEEP WORRYING)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Earned Income
  Earned Income
  Booklet "Country Code"
  Booklet "Country Code"
  NATIONAL SERVICE MEN (EMIGRATION RELEASE)
  NATIONAL SERVICE MEN (EMIGRATION RELEASE)
  TERRITORIAL FORCES (STRENGTH)
  TERRITORIAL FORCES (STRENGTH)
  PUBLIC HOUSES, CARLISLE (DARTS)
  PUBLIC HOUSES, CARLISLE (DARTS)
HOUSING
  Building Licence, Rayleigh
  Building Licence, Rayleigh
  District Heating Schemes
  District Heating Schemes
  MENTAL PATIENTS, BIRMINGHAM (ACCOMMODATION)
  MENTAL PATIENTS, BIRMINGHAM (ACCOMMODATION)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Viscount Elibank—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at the request of noble Lords opposite, it has been agreed that the House shall meet for Public Business to-morrow afternoon at 2.30 p.m., instead of at the usual hour of 4 o'clock for that day.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON DIVORCE
2.36 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can say when they expect to publish the composition and terms of reference of the proposed Royal Commission on Divorce.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, the composition and terms of reference of the proposed Royal Commission on Divorce have not yet been finally decided, but I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement in the near future.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for his answer, may I ask whether he will allow me to put down a Question on a more productive occasion?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, most certainly. I will keep in touch with the noble Lord and suggest a date when a Question might bear the fruit he desires.

IDENTITY CARDS
2.37 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will now abolish the use of identity cards and, if not, whether they will state the reason for which in their view these documents should be retained.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the Question of the noble Marquess, the answer is in the negative. The Government could not at once do away with identity cards. I would, however, draw the attention of your Lordships to a statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place last week. In that statement he said:
"The emergency legislation still in force is already kept under review, so that powers which are no longer required may be relinquished without delay."
In reply to the second part of the Question, identity cards are an essential part of the national registration system. which continues to render valuable service inconnection with National Service, security, food rationing, the National Health Service and the administration of other services, such as family allowances and post-war credits. The possession of an identity card as a simple means of establishing identity is of benefit to the individual in various ways. It enables him to obtain a new ration book and to withdraw money from the Post Office Savings Bank with the minimum of formality; it simplifies the process of obtaining a passport; it makes it unnecessary to produce a birth certificate in support of a claim for the payment of post-war credits; and it avoids difficulty in establishing identity when applying for dental or other treatment or to be placed on a doctor's list.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I take it from the second part of the noble Lord's answer that there is no prospect, in the foreseeable future, of these objects being removed from circulation?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not feel that in the foreseeable future this Government, or any other Government, will remove these things from circulation, in view of the circumstances of the times.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, reverting to the first part of the noble Lord's answer, if these matters are kept under constant review, why was it left to a public-spirited citizen, at his own charge, to test the matter in the courts of law, with the consequence that the practice with regard to calling for the production of identity cards in ordinary matters of police control of motoring offences was immediately modified?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope that what I am about to say will not seem to be discourteous to the noble Viscount, but I would rather not reply to his question at this stage. It should be understood that there is still time for an appeal to your Lordships' House against the decision of the courts, and the less we say now, the better for all concerned.
LORD HAWKE: Will the noble Lord tell us how people managed to identify themselves before the invention of identity cards?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, all I need to say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is that that question does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Without any disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor whether the statement, that an appeal lies from the Divisional Court which decided this matter, is correct
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not particularly aware of the facts in this regard. If it was a criminal case, there is no appeal; but if it was some other matter, there might be an appeal. I do not know into which category this case falls.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if these identity cards fulfil the valuable service which the noble Lord has explained to the House, how have 10,000 many deserters managed to get along for eight years so successfully without them?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will compare 10,000 with the many millions of cards in circulation, I think he will agree that the number is a very small proportion.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, why is it necessary, in renewing an old
578
passport, for an applicant to indicate his identity card number on the application form? Secondly, may I ask whether the identity card which I was given in this House at the beginning of the war is one which I can properly use instead of the normal one?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there are details of which I am not aware, and I think I should not be asking too much it I made the request that the noble Earl should first give me some information about his own case.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I would ask whether the noble Lord can explain this point further. I happened to ring up the Passport Office only ten minutes ago with regard to my passport, and I was told that it was necessary to insert an identity card number, although I obtained the passport originally without inserting any number.
LORD SHEPHERD: I must ask the noble Earl to address that question to the Foreign Office. I represent the Ministry of Health.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Perhaps I may relieve the noble Lord's mind by saying that I shall put down a Motion for further discussion of the matter.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, with respect, perhaps I may ask one more question. Even if the matter may be subject to further appeal, the noble Lord will be aware that, according to the statement in the Press, the police have now instructed their officers not to ask for identity cards in motoring offences. Will the noble Lord see that the register of motoring offences, which was referred to in the case recently before the courts, kept by the police even after the endorsement had lapsed, is now destroyed?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will see that the matter is referred to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (ADDITIONAL LOANS) BILL
Brought front the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
2.45 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI rose to draw attention to the position of Parliament with regard to the administration of nationalised industries, and to the position of noble Lords who have undertaken duties in connection with these industries; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which I have the honour to present to your Lordships divides itself into two parts, although I suggest that they are interlocked and have a bearing upon each other. The first is how best modern democracy can control and ensure the efficiency of its nationalised industries: and the second concerns the position of noble Lords who undertake duties in such industries. I should like to deal briefly with the second part first. I have made inquiries from the Government, and find that there are thirty-eight of your Lordships who hold positions of profit under the Crown, including, of course, the heads of the nationalised industries, the Chairmen of Boards and so on, but excluding Ministers, diplomats, civil servants, members of the Forces, and the occupants of the Episcopal Bench. But there are thirty-eight others, of whom fourteencan be identified as members of my Party. So that, if a spoils system is in operation, it is only partly operative.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The others may be "fellow travellers."
LORD STRABOLGI: I said fourteen who can be identified as members of the Labour Party. It is marvellous, when the Labour Partywin a victory, how many Socialists we discover in unexpected places. The question of the position of our noble colleagues in this House is, I suggest, one of public, constitutional and Parliamentary importance. It is a new development, of course, and the position of these noble Lords is comparatively novel.
I understand that the original edict given from on high was that noble Lords who hold positions on the boards of nationalised industries were to remain completely silent in this Chamber on all occasions, though they could, and did, speak as much as they liked in public about their responsibilities, so long as it
580
was not inside the Palace of Westminster. A number of us, in all Parties, have felt for some time that this position was untenable, and that Parliament on occasions was losing valuable counsel and advice. Apparently the leaders of the three Parties also thought it was necessary that something should be done about it. I gather that they got together in conclave and, no doubt after careful consideration, the result was that suddenly, without notice to anyone, they issued the pronunciamento made by my noble friend the Lord President of the Council (whose continued absenceI am sure we all regret) on March 21 in answer to a private notice Question by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I thought at the time—and I believe I was not alone in this—that a mere statement of this kind, and a few laudatory remarks by the eminent leaders of the Opposition Parties, was not sufficient; that this was a matter which concerns Parliament as a whole, the public interest, and the privileges, rights, duties and the prerogatives of the noble Lords concerned.
I gave notice that I should seek an opportunity of bringing this matter before your Lordships and I should have done so earlier. There was a day on which I found a vacancy, but that day was also taken for a very happy event—namely, the introduction to the Order of the Garter of the Lord President himself and the Leader of the Opposition. That is something which happens only once in a lifetime, like birth and death, and so for those reasons I postponed the Motion. But it is still important and still urgent and, I suggest, still worthy of attention. With regard to my noble colleagues who hold these positions, to my knowledge or within my hearing so far only two have made set speeches in your Lordships' House. One occasion was when my noble friend Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, who was under personal attack for some difference in the B.B.C. about broadcasting or not broadcasting a rather feeble play, was allowed to defend his actions. The other occasion was after my noble friend Lord Trefgarne resigned from the chairmanship of the Colonial Development Corporation. Those, I think, were the only two major speeches made by noble Lords holding these positions and seats in your Lordships' House. We had one or two short but, if I may say so,

581
valuable interventions by my noble friend Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, when matters particularly affecting civil aviation and his Corporation have come under your Lordships' debate, and I think his interventions were welcomed.
I have not been in your Lordships' House very long. I have been here a matter of only some sixteen years, and I have not the experience of many of your Lordships, but I venture to suggest that there will be and should be occasions upon which, without in any way impinging upon the prerogatives of the Minister concerned, a nobleLord who holds one of these great positions in a nationalised industry could give your Lordships very valuable counsel and advice. This seems to be recognised by the statement of March 21 by my noble friend the Lord President. But I think we need a little clarification of this matter. I do not think it is entirely clear what the exact position is, and I invite my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy—Who I understand is going to be good enough to reply—to give us some further enlightenment.
With regard to the other part of my Motion—the question of the control of the nationalised industries and great public monopolies—it is almost a year since we had a very important debate in your Lordships' House initiated by my noble friend Lord Lindsay of Birker, on July 5 last year. I have been re-reading that debate, and I see that there was general agreement in all parts of the House that the Consumers' Councils—which were supposed to safeguard the interests of the public against these great corporations—were generally a failure. Even my noble friend Lord Pakenham, who was then speaking for the Government, seemed to admit that that was so. Of course, these Consumers' Councils are new and the wholesituation is comparatively new, but my information is that there has been some improvement. I think we should all recognise that we are in a transitional stage and the whole situation is in process of development, including the means of safeguarding the rights of the general public and the public interest where these great corporations are concerned. At the same time, I do not think any of your Lordships will deny that the ultimate responsibility—and it is a very great responsibility—rests on Parliament.
582
We had a statement yesterday by the Paymaster General, and my noble friend then outlined the measures which it was proposed to pursue with regard to Parliamentary control. It seemed to me that the most valuable—though it is not very valuable, as I shall presently show was that there should be periodical debates on the accounts and reports of these boards. Many of your Lordships have had experience in another place, and you all have experience of this place. A Parliamentary debate on a monumental work such as the Annual Report of the National Coal Board, the Transport. Board or the Electricity Authority, is apt to be desultory. You get all sorts of people raising their local questions, naturally and rightly (I am speaking now particularly of another place) and it is difficult to avoid Party manoeuvres. Party feeling is bound to come into it. Although a full dress cebate of that kind is very valuable—I think the one last year served a most useful purpose—it is not enough, and something more is required. Presumably, the mines, the railways, public transport (including civil aviation), the Bank of England, the electricity and gas industries, the British Broadcasting Corporation, Cable and Wireless, et cetera—all the industries or services which are at present in national ownership, with the possible exception of iron and steel—will remain in national ownership. There will be alterations and amendments and a different method of control and so on if another Party forms the Government, but I do not think it is seriously proposed that, in the event of electoral misfortune bringing the Conservatives back into office, they would proceed to unscramble all those omelettes. Therefore, I think I carry your Lordships with me when I say that this is aproblem which will remain with us for many years ahead. Nor do I propose to say anything about whether there would be further measures of nationalisation in the event of a Labour Government taking office with a larger majority than at present. That would be quite outside the scope of my Motion, and I am sure your Lordships will not expect me to bring that in. I am dealing with the situation as it is.
Here are these great corporations on which the whole welfare of the community and nation depends, and anyone would be extremely bold to say that all

583
was well and that they could carry on by themselves without adequate Parliamentary control. In fact, without adequate Parliamentary control we approach the condition of syndicalism. If these great monopolies are allowed to carry on with only the Minister exercising private pressure upon them, with no effective Parliamentary control—the operative word is "effective"—we are in a situation of syndicalism. Although syndicalism may be the form in which democracy may develop, there is no mandate for it from the public at all. I do not think the public have ever had put before them the idea that when these great industries were nationalised (and the matter has been publicly debated for a generation or more) there would not be full ultimate control by Parliament and the Government of the day.
In this connection, I wonder whether my noble friend (I am sure he has) and his colleagues (I am not sure if all of them have) have read the papers produced by a number of my honourable friends in another place who form the nationalised industries group of the Parliamentary Labour Party? They have given a great deal of study to this whole question and they have produced some very valuable papers. They seem to feel doubt about the present state of affairs, while recognising that we are in a process of evolution. I am going to quote only one of their reports but it is, I think, very important.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask the noble Lord whether these reports are available to the public? Can one obtain them to read them?
LORD STRABOLGI: I was coming to that. I do not know whether these reports have been published, but they are open to any member of the Labour Party. I shall be delighted to lend the noble Lord my copies if he would like to see them. I consider they should be published. In any case they are not marked "confidential."
But what I am exercised about is whether Ministers and the people directly concerned in these great Corporations have studied these papers. Perhaps I may be allowed to give a quotation. It is as follows:
"The present position appears to he that so far as Parliament is concerned there is little or no control of Public Corporations,
584
apart from Ministerial control exercised privately …"
I would remind your Lordships that this is a Labour Party group, and its members, naturally, start with a bias in favour of nationalisation. I quote again:
"Matters of day to day administration are outside the scope of Parliamentary Questions. Theoretically, the boards are answerable to Parliament through the Minister, but the degree of independence which they in fact enjoy raises the whole question of public accountability. The annual report, whilst it is a clear acknowledgment of the obligation of the board to give an account of its affairs, is a record of events many of which have been completed long before there is any opportunity to examine the circumstances which obtained when the decisions relating to those events were made."
Something of the sort was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, during a debate in your Lordships' House about a year ago. There might be a "postmortem" if the Public Accounts Committee, for example, proceeded to examine the Annual Report. In the statement read out yesterday by the Paymaster General, that seemed to be the only concrete suggestion made. Those of us who want to see these nationalised industries succeed—and I think that applies to all of your Lordships, and certainly to myself—are a little exercised. We share that apprehension of the members of this group of experienced Parliamentarians—an apprehension for which I am sure there is justification.
I wonder whether my noble friend and his colleagues in the Government have had their attention drawn to some remarkable articles which appeared last May in the New Statesman by one of the outstanding intellectuals of the Labour Party, Professor G. D. H. Cole —and here I use the word "intellectual" as a compliment: I think all who know Professor Cole, who happens to be my oldest surviving friend in the Labour Party, will admit that his intellectual abilities are outstanding. Since the lamented death of the Webbs, I suppose he is the best-informed and best-read exponent of democratic Socialism in this country. He made some most caustic remarks in these articles, and especially in the second article which appeared on May 12. They are so caustic that I will not quote them. It is indeed remarkable that Professor Cole should find himself driven to reproaches of that kind. Now let me turn to the other side—the

585
non-intellectuals, the trade union leaders. Here, also, I use the term "nonintellectual" in a complimentary sense: these men are the labour leaders of this country. I was rather astonished to hear quoted on the wireless a couple of nights ago some remarks which had been made by Mr. Figgins, general secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen. He was talking about the railways, and I was not very reassured by what he said. He referred to:
"…the creation of a gigantic corporation run by a special class called management,' which does not wholeheartedly believe in its mission."
He went on to plead for a greater appreciation of the disabilities peculiar to the railways and for wider consultations with the railwaymen themselves
These reflections on certain of the nationalised industries come from supporters of the Government and supporters of nationalisation. They all show the necessity and importance of our examining whether we cannot find some system whereby Parliament may become a real guardian of the public interest, while at the same Lime not hampering and persecuting the boards. We found a way in the past with regard to the older nationalised industries—for of course nationalisation is not new. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, was a brilliant First Lord of the Admiralty for many years, and he and I sat in another place through many naval debates. The Royal Dockyards have been a nationalised industry for many generations. I remember many of the "Dockyard Members" seizing their opportunities to raise all sorts of questions concerning conditions, pay, efficiency, and so on. I never heard anyone coming to harm because of these discussions. I do not think that those responsible for the Royal Dockyards were "hampered, badgered and persecuted" or deprived of initiative, because of these discussions. In fact, I think my noble friend used to enjoy them. I suppose that the Roya1 Arsenals came under similar review.
Take the case of the Post Office. If we regard the Post Office without any Party bias at all we shall admit that, on the mundane measurements of the profit it makes, it is efficient. People grumble about the British telephone services, but I find then as good as, or better than, telephone services abroad. The whole
586
postal service is admirable, and yet the Post Office has for many years been open to the closest scrutiny by Parliament, and no one has suffered any harm, so far as I am aware. Or take a more recent example, the Ministry of Fuel and Power. The Minister has had to answer Questions in Parliament on such subjects as the price and quality of coal, and so on. The object of these remarks is to suggest that Parliamentary scrutiny need not be such a hindrance or a nuisance for these great corporations as has sometimes been suggested.
What are we to do about it? I will make, very briefly, a few suggestions. They are not my own; I have marshalled some suggestions made in debates in your Lordships' House and in another place, and by other persons such as those whom I named just now. One suggestion is that there should be a permanent Standing Committee on the Nationalised Industries, which should include members of both Houses of Parliament,with power to examine Ministers and directors of public corporations. I suggest that such a Standing Committee would show good sense, and that there would not be any "badgering." The next suggestion is that there should be a Select Committee of both Houses, set up every three, four or five years, to examine each nationalised, industry—in other words, that each, nationalised industry should come underthe scrutiny of a Select Committee of both Houses once in every three, four or five years; and that this Select Committee should be assisted (this is very important) by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Then there is the third suggestion for which I myself confess some sneaking liking (I think it was put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in the debate a year ago): that is, that the question of prices and rates charged by these nationalised industries should be investigated by the Monopolies Commission. After all, they are monopolies and as I say, I think there is a great deal to be said for that.
The last suggestion I put forward is that made by the National Union of Mineworkers who, I see, are about to propose that they themselves should begin a probing of the National Coal Board. I like that suggestion beg of all. I regard it as admirable. I hope they will receive proper facilities for their examination. I think that is fine. In case the noble

587
Marquess opposite has not followed me, I will say that again. In the last few days, the National Union of Mineworkers have announced that they think it is necessary that they should have a probe, an examination, an investigation of the affairs of the National Coal Board. I think that is splendid. I think that is something that should be supported, and I hope they will be given every facility. We all know—we have been reminded of it so often in weighty debates in your Lordships' House—that the economic situation of this country is difficult. Obviously, in that economic situation a great deal depends on the nationalised industries. Therefore, their efficiency is more important than it might be in more prosperous times, or when the country was in less difficulties. We cannot afford inefficiency—I use the word in its widest sense—either in relation to labour problems or in regard to the installation of the latest methods of machinery, the best business practices and so on. We cannot afford inefficiency in these great public corporations, and I am sure that my noble friends will agree with that. That being so, I submit to your Lordships that we cannot afford to neglect any means that will ensure this efficiency. It is certainly the direct responsibility of Parliament, as representing the nation, to see that all practical means are employed to this end. I beg to move for Papers.
3.14 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords. I shall have little occasion to detain your Lordships because the noble Lord has substantially made the speech which I myself should have wished to make. In fact, I think there is very little, if anything, that he said with which noble Lords on this side of the House can find themselves in disagreement. It is particularly on the second part of the noble Lord's speech that I want to add a few words. I do not propose to deal with the first part of his speech about members of this House being on boards. Those of us who have followed the growth of nationalisation—and here, of course, the noble Lord is perfectly right—realise that nationalisation in its present form is only an extension of something which was begun a great many years ago. The nationalisation of dockyards, arsenals, the Post Office and so on are part of our economic history.
588
It is, however, striking that, under the new dispensation, with the extension of nationalisation, it has been found necessary to depart from the original principle of the direct Parliamentary responsibility of the Minister in charge of whatever it may be—the Post Office, the arsenals or the dockyards. Parliament has been cloaked by the creation of boards, behind which in many ways, I think it is fair to say, and not an exaggeration to say, the responsible Minister has frequently sheltered. It is not only in the nationalised industries to which the noble Lord has referred that this has happened, but it has happened there more particularly. One wonders why, if the Party of which the noble Lord is a distinguished member wished to extend nationalisation, they departed from the principle of direct control and found it necessary to institute boards, and then found it necessary, when the question arose of Parliament calling the boards to account through the responsible Minister, that the Minister should decline to reply to a great many Questions which in former days the same responsible Minister would have answered.
For instance, I take the case of the railways. Before the nationalisation of the railways, there were countless Questions asked in another place about train services, tariffs, rates of pay and development, to which the Minister of Transport replied. Under the present dispensation, those Questions now fall to be the direct responsibility of the British Transport Commission, and the Minister, presumably, in conformity with general principles adopted in other cases, would say that that was a matter in which the Commission were responsible and he left it to them. Therefore, in point of fact, not only have we departed from the principle of Parliamentary responsibility for expenditure in nationalised industries which did obtain, and still does obtain, in the case of the Post Office and the dockyards, but we have departed from it further in substantially abstracting, for instance, railway services from the inquiry by Parliament into what is going on there. So there has been, in fact, a retrogression of Parliamentary responsibilities.
One wonders why and how this happened. It is difficult to answer that question, and, even with the reports that have been made, I find it difficult to know the real answer. There was, apparently, in

589
general a feeling that Departmental direct responsibility for commercial or quasi-commercial activities was not desirable. Apparently, it was felt, and perhaps not only in the Labour Party, that the Parliamentary control to which Government Departments—the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply—were subject was not the machine which was best fitted for carrying on direct commercial activities, which must sometimes involve competitive selling and the sort of decisions which are best taken in a public company under private commercial control. If I am right, out of that conception grew the idea that we should have a sort of hybrid. It was born, I think, out of the creation and the development of public boards such as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the Port of London Authority and the London Transport Board. And the development was that, having started with non-profit-earning boards which had, as it were, commercial functions, by a process of evolution those boards could be invested with rather more commercial functions and given profit-earning capacities and competitive activities with other industries. I think that is how it happened.
But admittedly the national boards which we have to-day in the coal, electricity and gas industries, and latterly of course in the iron and steel sphere, have not been very happy. They have neither reconciled the opponents of nationalisation to the idea that a commercial Board or a board of commercially-minded people would run those industries more efficiently than would a department, nor satisfied the employees in the industries concerned. In the last twelve or eighteen months we have had countless examples of that. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, quoted one upon which I want to elaborate a little—namely, the decision of the National Union of Mineworkers to investigate the inefficient running and the expenditure of the Coal Board. We have also had statements made recently by eminent trade unionists in the steel trade. They have observed that as a result of the Iron and Steel Act a number of people are turning up in steel works who appear to know singularly little, or nothing, about steel. Those criticisms, as well as those to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred, come from supporters of the Government
590
side; in other words, the boards which have been created and which were meant to import commercial efficiency in the place of departmental administration, appear in the course of the last two or three years to have satisfied neither the general public, not even those who are supporters of the Government, nor the people in the industry.
There is obviously something fundamentally wrong there, and I submit to your Lordships that, in fact, it is that neither the Minister nor the boards are to-day subject to inquiry, question and criticism. The sentence quoted by the noble Lord who moved this Motion is very revealing—I think I took down the words more or less accurately. He said that they came from a report of the nationalised industries group of the Parliamentary Labour Party in another place, which stated that:
"there is little or no control of public corporations, apart from Ministerial control exercised privately."
Will your Lordships allow me to translate that into commercial terms? It is as if the holder of a large block of shares in a public company was privately exercising control over the board of directors without himself being accountable to anybody. As we know, that is one of the most vicious things that can happen in the conduct of a public company. The person who has that power is accountable to nobody except himself. Without pushing the analogy too closely, have we not something precisely of that sort happening in the control by the Minister over these national corporations? He is exercising control privately. He is not accountable to Parliament, as is the Postmaster-General, to whom we can complain and of whom we can ask Questions when the telephone service from Northampton or Nottingham is not working properly. The Minister in charge of these other nationalised industries is in a position today to shelve that question and to say, "That has nothing to do with me. That is a matter for the board, and the Question cannot he allowed." In other words, he is responsible to no one but himself, except for the ultimate sanction of getting into such trouble with his colleagues that he is asked to resign or finds himself losing the confidence of Parliament, both of which sanctions are commercially quite inapplicable to the problem.

591
That is the sort of problem that has arisen in discussing the nationalisation Acts in your Lordships' House. It is not satisfactory; it is not the right way to run an enterprise. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi was perfectly right when he said that, by and large, we have a very efficient Post Office and postal services. Some of us may not agree that our telephone service is quite as efficient as that, say, in the United States, and I, for one, might argue with him that if it had been left in private hands it would be even more efficient. But let us admit that it is a great deal better than it was. I wonder whether it would have been as good as it is if Questions in Parliament in regard to the telephone service had been ruled out of order. If there had been a Post Office board, with some directors nominated from your Lordships' House—provided, of course, that they came from the right political Party and, naturally, that they remained in close allegiance and did not displease the Government; or, if they did, were prepared to incur the risk of having their appointments terminated—I wonder whether we should have had as efficient a postal service as we have now. I do not think we should.
But if the position is as I see it, that we have a Minister who exercises private control, who is in fact divorced from day-to-day Parliamentary criticism and, if necessary, attack, have we not reached the position of a private shareholder controlling an industry? If we look at the thing perfectly nakedly and crudely in what may be its ultimate absurd relationship, does it not mean that the Minister of Supply is to-day in fact the chairman of the iron and steel industry? Just let us think about that a little. He has it in his power to remove, or not to reappoint, members of the Iron and Steel Board, who themselves, I may say parenthetically, are in a great many cases not very familiar with the iron and steel industry. It may be that the Minister of Supply is more familiar with it than they are. But have we not the position there of a Minister trying to control the holding company of an industry which is far greater in magnitude than the great steel corporations in the United States, without the sanction of his shareholders, without having to go to an annual general meeting and be criticised and, above all, without having any share-
592
holders who have the remedies which they can apply in the course of a year, and before the "post-mortem" to which the noble Lord refers? The chairman of an ordinary company has the constant fear that if something goes wrong in the course of a year he may be called to account. To-day we have a Minister of Supply who is virtually chairman of a steel company of incredible magnitude, who is not accountable from day to day, and who can be criticised only after the damage has been done.
These criticisms, which come from supporters of the Government. show how much disquiet has already been engendered in the very few years that have elapsed since these Bills have become Acts. I entirely agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said about Mr. G. D. H. Cole. I have heard many statements that he has made, viva voce, and I have read many of the things that he has written. He has one of the shrewdest and ablest minds among Socialist economists to-day. But he is not alone in entertaining this fear to which he has given expression. These criticisms from the nationalised industries group in another place, are precisely what have led the National Union of Mineworkers to conduct their own investigation concerning efficiency and expenditure. I agree that that is healthy, and I am all for it; but they are doing something which Parliament ought to be doing and which Parliament would have done in the case of the Post Office and the dockyards but has not been allowed to do here. It seems a curious position that we have got into when a private body—a trade union is, for this purpose, a private body—should have to take upon itself the responsibility for an investigation of the expenditure of monies provided by the public purse, because that investigation has been removed from the ambit of the House of Commons. That is, indeed, a very peculiar position, and one that needs investigation and an answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, proposed three answers or, rather, suggested three courses which would assist in this matter. I submit that there is a fourth, which is much simpler; and that is to make each of the corporations a direct responsibility of the Minister and have him answer Questions in Parliament at any time about the activities of his corporation, just as the Postmaster-General

593
has to do in the case of the Post Office. Had that happened before, I suggest that a great many of the scandals which have taken place—for instance, in the Colonial Development Corporation—would not have occurred. Many of the things that have been, and still are, going on, have been common knowledge to a great many of us.
In point of fact, the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been chairman—though he has not been answerable to shareholders—of fifty-odd enterprises. Hardly a week passes in which something does not happen which would have formed the subject of a whole string of Questions in your Lordships' House, as well as in another place. Can your Lordships conceive what would happen if the Postmaster-General put up a long-distance telephone line between any two points in the United Kingdom, and a wind got up and blew it down? There would be Questions in Parliament—strings of them, day after day. What has happened? The Colonial Development Corporation, through its engineering department, put up a freezing plant in the Falkland Isles and a wind blew the wall down. That is a matter which is immune from Parliamentary inquiry. Is that reasonable? No. The noble Lord is right. This is an impossible position which we have got into, and a cure for it is urgently needed. But a cure for it is also quite simple.
On general policy, investigation of charges by the Monopolies Commission is obviously right, but another and simpler remedy would be to subject the activities of these corporations, whether they have boards or not, to Parliamentary inquiry from day to day—not through a Standing Committee, but through the ordinary everyday activities of Parliament. That, probably, would also deal with one or two rather curious and, as it seems to us on this side of the House, rather disquieting developments. For instance, we see members of your Lordships' House who have "fallen out" with the Government either removed from the boards on which they were servingor, at any rate, not reappointed—I refer in particular to the termination of the activities of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, on the Colonial Development Corporation, which has been announced in the Press. There is another case which though not strictly analogous, is similar. If a member of a board, because he happened to hold different politi-
594
cal views from those of his Minister, were removed, and the activities of these boards could be called to account in Parliament, Questions would be asked—andrightly asked.
LORD STRABOLGI: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? The Minister can be questioned on appointments and, presumably, on removals from a board. If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, he should not overstate his case.
LORD RENNELL: Appointments, I think, can be made the subject of questions, but not removals. The Minister will, no doubt, correct me if I am wrong about that. I accept what the noble Lord says; it may be, overstating it, but I do not think it is in this particular case. The principle of calling a Minister to account for the activities of a corporation remains, so far as I am concerned, quite unassailable on the arguments which both the noble Lord and I have put forward. The fact of the matter is—and I refer your Lordships to Lord. Lindsay of Birker's Motion, which was put forward about a year ago—that thought on the control of national industries has developed a great deal since, the first of these post-war Bills was introduced. But there has been no progress in the thoughts of Ministers regarding the way in which these boards should be administered, and I think the time is now overdue when we must completely recast in our minds the shape and form of these boards. For that reason, I, for my part, and I think noble Lords on these Benches generally, very much welcome the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has moved in your Lordships' House to-day. I should like to add that I find myself substantially in agreement with everything which the noble Lord has said.
3.28 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for having raised this very interesting and important subject, and also for the excellent and skilful way in which he has done it. I may add that I find myself in considerable agreement with a great deal of what he has said. His Motion deals really wit h two distinct subjects. One relates to the question of noble Lords who are members of and take part, in the nationalised industries. The other

595
deals with the administration of those industries. I should like to say a few words upon the former subject, the position of noble Lords who are members of nationalised industries, and on the part they can play in this House. It is a subject that I have had to consider in the past, and I feel quite definitely that, although noble Lords who are members of particular bodies should not take any part in discussions on the subject matters in which they are directly concerned, there is no reason why they should not otherwise take as full and active a part in the business of the House as any other noble Lord.
I feel that there would be something inappropriate in, for instance, the chairman of a new town corporation taking part in a debate on a new town with which he would be directly concerned. It so happens that there are two noble Lords in that position. Incidentally, neither of them is a member of the Labour Party. I should like to stress that none of these appointments was made on political grounds. The appointments were based entirely on the ability of the persons appointed to carry out the job, and that, so far as my own experience goes, is the position throughout. A good deal of discussion on this matter has taken place on the basis that these are Party appointments, and I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, that that is not the case. It sometimes happens that a member of the Labour Party is suited for a particular appointment. On the law of possibility I think we should find that half of them are; but their membership of the Labour Party is not the basis of their appointment. I think the position of noble Lords who are members of these bodies is perfectly clear. They ought not to take part in discussions on matters connected with their own boards, but should be free to take part in any other discussion.
On the general question of the administration of public boards, I could not help feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, was being driven logically into the argument that it was wrong to have public boards at all; or, at any rate, that it was much better that the nationalised industries should be run by Departments of the State. It seemed to me that the tenor of his argument went in that direction, because in that way the Minister respons-
596
ible could be asked questions about the day-to-day activities of his board. He held out the example of the Post Office and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, instanced the Admiralty, as being ideal from the point of view of public accountability. But noble Lords may remember the debates that took place in connection with nationalised industries. Your Lordships may remember all the pressure from noble Lords opposite, and from Members opposite in another place, in the direction of having people running these industries who understood the industries, had experience of them and were competent business men—and, essentially, that they should not be run by civil servants. That view was accepted, and it was largely for that reason that public corporations were set up. For that reason, also, it was decided to set up public corporations in the new towns, a matter for which I had some responsibility. I think that on the whole that decision was right. No civil servant could have run the steel board, or the boards for transport, electricity or gas. I think they are essentially organisations that should be run by people with knowledge and experience of the industries concerned. That applies even more to the National Coal Board. So we had these corporations set up to run the nationalised industries.
The question then arose of how we were to secure public accountability. I believe that public accountability is vital. The whole case for nationalisation is based upon public accountability. The main argument for nationalisation is that private bodies are not accountable to anybody—they can act on their own sweet will and discretion; and that the public corporation is bound to act in accordance with the public interest, and the public are entitled to know what is being done. Here we have a dilemma. If we accept the position that the public corporation is the best mechanism for running a nationalised industry, how are we going to secure public accountability? It seems to me obvious that we could not set up a public board to run an industry and then interfere in their day-to-day activities—and no one took a stronger line on this point than noble Lords opposite. It is wrong that these boards should be subject to questioning about every action which they take. I know that it happens with the Post Office and with the Admiralty, but I am not so sure that even in these

597
cases it is desirable that that should be so. That not the case in the Imperial Chemical Industries or in any other big private concern. A shareholder does not suddenly sand up and ask questions about a particular day-to-day decision of the I.C.I., and I think it would be quite inappropriate that it should be possible for a Member of Parliament to stand up in either House and ask questions about the day-to-day details of administration of the public boards. I think that that view was generally accepted on all sides of the House.
Then came the question of interpreting that view. Obviously in interpreting it, there had to be a ruling that the Minister responsible should not be subject to questioning in the House. I think that decision was broadly right. But that does not dispose of the matter. I remember some weeks ago listening to a debate on transport, in which a number of noble Lords brought up specific questions of unwarrantable delays in the collection and delivery of goods. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, brought up a very involved case about goods which were sent from Bristol to somewhere in the North but which did not get there for many days. I thought then: what is the remedy? How can this sort of thing be brought to the notice of those responsible? in the ordinary way, where there is competition, business can be taken away and put elsewhere: but in the case of a monopoly that cannot be done. We are faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, it seems to me quite inappropriate that a Minister should be subject to questioning on day-to-day matters, but, on the other, there ought to be some way of ventilating these problems.
I think the present machinery is quite inadequate, and nobody, I feel, realises that more than the Government themselves. After all, we are at the beginning of an experimental stage in the development of the economic system of our country: we are feeling our way. In another place some months ago the present Foreign Secretary said that the Government were prepared to go by experience and to modify the system as experience dictated. We are now accumulating a good deal of experience. I hope that the Government realise that rather more public accountability is necessary than exists to-day, even though
598
we ought not to interfere with the day-to-day administration of industry. When we appoint responsible people to run an industry, we should leave them alone and not "shoot" at them all the time, subjecting them to Parliamentary questioning which, let us be frank, is sometimes not directed purely to the efficiency of the industry but is a means of "getting at" the Minister behind the industry. That seems to me to be an impossible position in which to put people.
I should have thought that the various alternatives that have been put forward in this debate were well worth considering. I cannot agree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who advocates day-to-day questioning, but I think the three suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, are worth considering. I would suggest that at least there ought to be something equivalent to the annual shareholders' meeting of a company, an analogy which Lord Rennell made in the course of his speech; there ought to be a full day's debate in each House on each industry.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but lie has great experience of this subject. When he says that you cannot have day-to-day questions about day-to-day management, I do not think anybody would disagree. The real point is: What is day-to-day management? I should like to put this point to the noble Lord. Obviously, it would be wrong to have a Question as to why the 8.15 train was late this morning; but does he mean that if all the trains over three months are late all the time we should not have a Question today or to-morrow, and that somebody should not have to reply?
LORD SILKIN: My answer to that is that the noble Viscount does not really clear the dilemma. If he agrees that we cannot have Questions as to why trains were late on a particular morning, but that we ought to allow questions as to why they have been late continually for three months, then he is really agreeing that there ought to be a restriction on Questions, and that the line ought to be drawn somewhere. I am suggesting merely that the line might be drawn at a grand inquest on a particular industry once a year—or possibly twice a year, if that is preferable—al which questions of

599
this kind might be raised. But, with respect to the noble Viscount, I do not think it would be appropriate for Questions to be asked in the House even on such a hypothetical question as he has raised; nor does it seem to me that it would be easy to draw a line as to what Questions concern day-to-day administration, and where the matter ceases to be day-to-day administration and becomes something else.
I believe that the right analogy is that drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who compared these public corporations with companies. I should be prepared to accept that comparison. I feel that when Parliament has this grand inquest, it ought to be a real one; there ought to be full information given, and adequate opportunity for every member of either House to express views as to the administration of the corporation during the previous year, or half-year if that were thought desirable. It seems to me that that is a better way to do it than to do it by Questions in the House which, as I have said, tend to become political and are not always relevant to the issue.
LORD RENNELL: Has the noble Lord taken into account the essential difference between a national board and a private company? A shareholder in a private company, if he is not satisfied with the conduct of the company's affairs in the course of the year, even before the annual general meeting, and quite apart from any contact he may have with the directors, can sell his shares and get out. We cannot get out of the railways.
LORD SILKIN: I admit that that is a difference. But the noble Lord drew the analogy of a company where, according to him, there was ample opportunity for raising these matters, and I was merely following up his remarks. I suggest that we can put the public corporations in at least as favourable a position, from the point of view of public accountability, as is the private company—indeed, in a more favourable position because, generally speaking, the meetings of private companies are fixed at twelve o'clock, and by a natural process of attrition they tend to finish somewhere about one o'clock, whereas no such limitation exists, at any rate, in the other place, where they can go on as long as they like.
600
I do not think we have yet reached finality about this matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabogli, pointed out, this is not a Party matter. Noble Lords on this side of the House are at least as uneasy as noble Lords opposite about the workings of public corporations and the question of public accountability. I suggest that the time may well have arrived for an impartial, objective inquiry into the best means of securing public accountability. Various suggestions worthy of consideration have already been made in the course of this debate, and others will no doubt be made. I do not think it is possible for a Minister to give a reply immediately. I believe that the best way of dealing with this problem would be to have an inquiry—it might be by the appointment of a Select Committee, or in some other form—which will give the public confidence that the problem of finding the best way of securing the public accountability that we all desire is being seriously considered.
3.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has inaugurated a most interesting debate on two matters, one a minor matter and really domestic to your Lordships' House, and the other a major matter of vast public importance. The two are not very closely connected, except by the fact that both relate to public boards. The first concerns the position of noble Lords who happen to have been chosen for posts, either as chairmen or members of public boards. What is their duty to themselves, to this House and to their board when some question arises directly affecting that particular board? The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned two cases. The first was when a chairman of a board, having resigned, made a personal statement here in relation to his recent resignation. That is not a new or peculiar question; nor does it apply only to chairmen of boards. It is the same issue that arises when any Minister of the Crown resigns, and there is always established by long practice a right in such cases for the Member of the House of Commons or the member of your Lordships' House concerned, if he so wishes, to make a personal statement defending his own conduct. No one would suggest that exception should be made for an ex-chairman of a board, any

601
more than for anyone else holding a public appointment who happens to be a member of one House or the other.
The second was the interesting case that arose in relation to the B.B.C., where the Chairman of the Board, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, had taken action which had been very much animadverted upon. The course that was taken in that matter is worthy of your Lordships' attention, because it was seriously considered and it may serve as a precedent and patter for other cases. It was then thought—and it was also Lord Simon's opinion—that he ought not to take any part in the general debate upon the propriety of his action. That duty belongs to the Government and to the Minister who was responsible for the Board, and the fact that the Chairman happened to be—he might not have been —a member of this House, does not really affect the constitutional obligations of the Minister and of the Government. Consequently, the debate on the issue was conducted without the participation of Lord Simon; the arguments one side or the other were discussed and the opinion of the House was more or less formed. After the merits of the case had been debated and the Government had made their statement, Lord Simon, by leave, rose and made a personal statement as to the reason which had actuated him as an individual in that particular case.
LORD STRABOLGI: He had no reason to ask leave.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Possibly he did not ask leave. I am not sure that he did not begin with some little explanation, but that is by the way. With regard to the general statement, as your Lordships are aware that was carefully considered by the Leader of the House, in consultation with leaders of other Parties, in accordance with an undertaking that he had given in your Lordships' House. A statement was made on March 21 of this year. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, described it as a pronunciamento, but it was far from being that. As one of those who were concerned in its preparation, and as the matter has not freshly been drawn to your Lordships' attention, perhaps you would permit me to read some of the
602
salient features of this statement. The first numbered paragraph says:
"In the first place, we are agreed that only the Peer concerned can in the last resort decide whether he shall speak in the House on a particular occasion."
Therefore, there is no pronunciamento. Every one of us who has the honour of being a member of your Lordships' House has duties and responsibilities and also rights. There is no contitutional authority which can control his action in a case such as this. Paragraphs (2) and (3) say:
"Nevertheless, we are agreed there are certain general considerations which it would be right that the House and the Peer should take into account.
"When questions affecting a particular Board or public Boards in general arise in Parliament, the parent Minister"—
rather an odd phrase, but we know what it means—
"and the Government of the day generally are alone responsible to Parliament. The duty of reply rests with Ministers only, and cannot devolve upon members of public Boards who may also be members of the House of Lords. There can be no question of Board members replacing, or usurping the functions of, Ministers and dealing with matters of Ministerial responsibility. In the Commons, of course, the possibility could not arise, because a Member of that House must resign his seat on accepting an appointment of this nature."
Paragraphs (4) and (5) say:
"Further, we agree that it is important that, as contemplated by the Statutes and, in the case of the B.B.C., by the Charter, the Boards shall he free to conduct their day-to-day administration without the intervention of Parliament or the Ministers, except where otherwise provided. If Board members who happen also to be Peers were to give the House information about the day-to-day operations of the Board or to answer criticisms respecting it, the House would in fact he exercising a measure of Parliamentary supervision over matters of management. It would also be difficult for the responsible Minister not to give similar information to the House of Commons.
"We also agree that there is no duty upon the Board member to answer questions put to him in debate, and that no criticism should attach to any member of a Board who refrains from speaking in a debate…."
Paragraph (6) says:
"Finally, I should like to make it clear that what I have said applies only to debates relating to public Boards. Experience acquired as a member of a public Board will often he relevant to general debates in which the same considerations do not arise, and the contributions of Board members who are Peers may he all the more valuable because of that experience."
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, did not take exception to that statement, and

603
neither has any other noble Lord who has spoken. Therefore, subject to any observations which may be made later in this debate, I should imagine that those who are responsible for the preparation of that statement may consider that they have, on the whole, well met the wishes of the House.
Some minor questions arise in that connection. If that is accepted, it is quite clear that it is not obligatory upon any Peer who is connected with a board to speak in any debate relating to his own board. It is no reflection upon him that he either does not attend your Lordships' House or attends without rising from his seat. While not obligatory, it may be permissible for him to speak, but only within somewhat strict limitations, and not in any way infringing the rights which properly belong to the Minister who is specially connected with that particular board.
I should like to add one further observation not dealt with in this statement because it would not have been proper to be dealt with there, but which is, however, relevant, and supports the general course that we thought it right to advise. It is that if the contrary practice were adopted, and if it did become customary for Peers who are members of boards to intervene on debates on that particular subject, and if it were gradually regarded as derogatory to a member if he did not do so, the effect might be to some extent to disqualify members of your Lordships' House for appointments to those boards. It would be said: "Well, so-and-so would do extremely well as chairman of this board or that. The only thing against him is that he is a Peer, and it is very troublesome to have a Peer a member of a board because he is always intervening in debates and it makes his position very troublesome with his Minister and with his colleagues." His presence on the board would not be greatly welcomed, particularly if there were differences of opinion within the board—and such things do happen. If there were a division of opinion, one member holding one point of view would be able to express it publicly in your Lordships' House, while another who did not hold that point of view would have to keep silent. Therefore, I think that while it may be thought that, by taking the course we have, we are denying Peers
604
certain rights that they already hold had we taken the opposite course we might have been imposing upon a perfectly worthy Peer who would be glad to be appointed to one board or another a disability to which he would not otherwise be subjected.
The question of Parliamentary control over the nationalised industries is by no means domestic, but very national; as I said, it is by no means minor, but is of the highest moment. It is also a most difficult question. We are now faced with a new problem in our politics and social organisation: the nationalised industries —new, in effect, because although some nationalised industries are ancient, they stand on a very different footing. The Post Office was mentioned. I had the honour, many years ago—so long ago that it seems almost to have been in a different incarnation—of holding for three or four years the office of Postmaster-General. The Post Office in those days was a highly efficient body, and I have no doubt that, with longer experience and greater knowledge, it is much more efficient to-day. But I do not think its efficiency is proved by the profit it makes; that is wholly at the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He puts up the cost of a postage stamp on inland letters, and instantly millions flow into the Exchequer. In so far as the Post Office is merely a tax-gathering institution there seems to me a great misuse of the principles of taxation. To tax communications is one of the worst forms of taxation. To put an extra halfpenny on a letter which costs less than a penny to carry may produce a great profit; but that is due not to the merits of the Post Office but to the exigencies of the situation.
The difference between the Post Office and other industries is that the Post Office is a very old-established and, on the whole, a stabilised industry. It does not often have to deal with any new problems; it is more or less a routine institution. Sometimes, as, for instance, when there was the question of taking over the telephones, which arose while I was Postmaster-General, new problems do arise. In the main, however, it is not a competitive industry in any respect and it is a simpler industry than the others. There is no question of foreign competition or of promoting exports. If you look at the Post Office in itself and then

605
look, for example, at the steel industry, you can see an enormous difference when it comes to questions of Parliamentary intervention in matters of administration.
There is this other general consideration with regard to nationalised industries. They are opposed by many on the grounds that they are too slow in taking risks. They are always fearful of losing public mosey. They have always the disadvantages of bureaucracy and the delay of continuous consultations. It is right, of course, to be cautious, but caution is often carried to timidity. If you have nationalised industries at all you should give them a fair chance as against private enterprise. Parliament having decided to nationalise certain industries, it would be wrong to hinder and hamper their working by imposing restrictions to which private enterprise is not subject. If you were to have day-by-day or week-by-week, or, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said, six-monthly by six-monthly inquiries, and were to go into the question of why there were delays on the railways or in the building of a wall in Stornoway, you would cause confusion among local officials. They would be conscious of the fact that any mistake would be, or at any rate might be, ventilated in Parliament within a week or two. They would be very unfairly handicapped in comparison with industries under private enterprise.
A shareholders' meeting was given as an example. But no director ever thinks of a shareholders' annual meeting unless in the event of some great issue or some crisis, and the average shareholders' meeting may be attended by fewer shareholders than the number of directors at the board table. No, my Lords, that is not the answer to our problem. I should strongly deprecate any line being taken such as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell: that the right form of control is by Parliamentary Question and Answer, month by month and Session by Session. A Parliamentary inquiry from time to time is quite a different matter; but, here again, if inquiries are too frequent you have the same lethargic effect: the industry will always be looking to see what is to happen at the next inquiry. I have, indirectly, had some experience with regard to that as a member of the General Advisory Council of the B.B.C., into which an inquiry has lately been held. Those inquiries take place as a rule only
606
once in ten years. When they are made they cause an upheaval within the organisation. Many matters are held up until the report of the commission of inquiry has been received; and, in general, a great part of the attention of the officials is devoted to the inquiry. This is a hindrance to the smooth working of an industry, not only during the inquiry but long before it and for some time after wards. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested inquiries every year or even every six months. I think that such a course would be open to the greatest possible objection. That really would be interference with the day-by-day conduct of the industry.
LORD SILKIN: I was not referring to an inquiry of the nature suggested by the noble Viscount. I was thinking of a debate in the House.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I think the noble Lord used the expression "a grand inquest."
LORD SILKIN: I took that from another source. It was really a debate was thinking of.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Anyway, a grand inquest every six months is not being pressed; but, at longer intervals, something of the kind might possibly provide a solution to our problems. I agree with the final words of Lord Silkin. He came to a conclusion which I also was going to suggest. The matter is one of great difficulty and complexity, involving wide issues which ought to be examined thoroughly and at leisure, and it is impossible for those of us taking part in this debate to-day to come to any definite conclusion. That is my own feeling; some of your Lordships may hold a different view. But there should be, now that some of these industries have been nationalised for a few years, a specific inquiry into the relations between Parliament and the Government and these industries; and this inquiry should, I think, be a Parliamentary one. It is not the business of some outside body to suggest what are the duties of Parliament. Therefore it should probably take the form of a Select Committee; and the machinery of a Joint Select Committee would seem to be the best.
In the early days of my Parliamentary experience, I saw that Select Committees and Joint Committees were constantly

607
being appointed. Every year two or three Committees would be appointed to inquire into some specific question. They took evidence—and they had very wide powers of obtaining evidence. As long ago as 1909 I was Chairman of a Joint Committee of the two Houses, whose task was to inquire into the censorship of plays —a Committee which aroused a great deal of public attention. Nowadays there are few such inquiries, and such as there are are almost all conducted by departmental Committees or Royal Commissions nominated by the Government. That is, perhaps, another example of the undue subservience of the Members of the Houses of Parliament to the Executive of the day. I think it would be quite a good thing if your Lordships, from time to time, when some question aroused special attention and you had not adequate information to enable you to come to a conclusion, appointed a Select Committee, without inviting the consent of anybody at all, and made your own inquiry, had your own reports and formed your own opinions. Possibly this question of the future course of policy with regard to the nationalised industries might well be proceeded with along those lines —your Lordships not, of course, acting alone, but with the other House of Parliament.
4.21 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I intend to say only a few brief words to your Lordships this afternoon, since the points which I had proposed to make have already been fairly fully covered. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, from this side of the House has dealt with the first part of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and I do not propose to trench at any great length on that ground, though I should like to say a few words at the end of my remarks. It is the second part of the Motion which deals with the position of noble Lords who are members of this House and who happen also to be chairmen or members of nationalised boards, on which I wish to speak. No doubt, that is a difficult subject, and I think all of us realise it. It was for that reason that the Leader of the House asked the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and myself to discuss the position with him. Our discussions led to the statement of March 21, to which reference has already been made. If your Lordships
608
will allow me to say so, I personally do not complain that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, should have raised the matter again. It is clearly a new constitutional position in which we have to find our way; and the more we discuss it the better.
I do not think that I have a great deal to add to the statement of March 21, especially as it has been referred to in considerable detail by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I would most certainly agree with him that it was not intended to be, however it appeared, a pronunciamento. That is the last thing in the world that it was. The leaders of every Party in this House recognise that we have no right to dictate to Peers in any part of the House what their attitude should be: that is a matter for them. As hereditary Peers, they have their constitutional rights, and they have, indeed, their constitutional responsibilities, and no one but themselves can interpret those responsibilities. What we can do, and what we try to do, is to give advice, with such joint experience as we have, as to the broad lines which Peers might take. And I think that is as far as we can properly go.
That view was expressed in the statement of March 21. Broadly speaking, as I see it, what it comes to is that a Peer who happens to be a member or chairman of a board cannot be challenged in this House as to the day-to-day running of the industry in whose control he plays a part. It would be intolerable if a Peer sitting in this or that part of the House happened to be a member of a board and somebody were able to get up in this House and challenge him on small day-to-day details. That would be both impracticable and undesirable. But, in my view, a Peer is not inhibited from making such contribution as he thinks proper, even on the subject of a board of which he is a member, for the purpose of removing misunderstandings or misconceptions as to the general policy of the board. I did not entirely agree there with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who I think felt that he ought not to speak at all on such a subject.
After all, the purpose for which noble Lords sit in this House is to be helpful, helpful not only to the House but to the country generally. They may possess specialised information which may be useful to the House, which does not in any

609
way give away secrets of a board or prove to be in any way embarrassing to it. On the contrary, it may be helpful to the board that the facts should be known, and in a case of that kind I should have thought that a Peer was fully justified in making such a contribution as he thought right. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, referred to the statements—in fact the only two statements that we have had by members of this House who are also members of boards—made by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I should regard both those statements as irrelevant to our discussion to-day, because they were intended to be personal statements, although in one instance the noble Lord concerned went a bit far. I hope that in due course other contributions will be made. I do not believe that those contributions need conflict with the advice which the leaders have given, and they may well be extremely useful to the House. That is all I want to say on that issue.
And now a word on a subject on which I cannot pretend to be an expert—that is, the administration of nationalised industries and their relationship to Parliament. How is Parliament to keep some control over the nationalised industries? In raising that question, I find myself in great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I would say this, however—though it may perhaps be regarded as a repetition of what has already been said: If these industries were privately run, the ultimate control would he in the hands of the shareholders. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that in such cases, the directors were accountable to no one. I do not think that is an accurate description of the situation. The directors are accountable to their shareholders and they must be so. The companies hold their annual meetings, and at those meetings the shareholders can criticise the directors and, if necessary, can remove them. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, quite truly, that, in the vast majority of cases, they are very quiet and unobstrusive meetings. Very few shareholders turn up and, on the whole, things pass through as a mere formality. That is entirely true. But the fact remains that, if they like, the shareholders can turn up in force, and they can out-vote and, if
610
necessary, dismiss the directors. Alternatively, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell reminded your Lordships, a dissatisfied shareholder can sell his shares and get out of the concern altogether.
But once an industry is nationalised, the shareholders become in effect, as noble Lords opposite have often reminded us, the British people. They cannot sell their shares; they cannot get out of the concern. How are they to exercise at any rate some control? That is what is worrying them, and that, I am sure, is what is worrying us—I do not say merely on this side of the House it is a common problem which has to be faced. The natural conclusion would be that it must be done through the elected representatives in Parliament, who are the representatives, for this purpose, of the shareholders. But there is a difficulty which has not been mentioned this afternoon, though I have no doubt that everyone is conscious of it. In an ordinary shareholders' meeting the shareholders are concerned only with the affairs of that particular company. That is why they have come to attend the meeting. In Parliament the elected representatives of the people may spend only an hour or two on any particular industry whose affairs are being discussed. But that is not their only interest. They are there as supporters of a certain Party in Parliament. They have been elected to support that Party on the broadest lines, and they will not be at all anxious to bring about the defeat of their Party, even though they personally may be extremely dissatisfied with the administration of a particular board. Moreover, they are subject to Whips; and nowadays Whips are extremely powerful. I have no doubt that a good many directors of private companies would be in a very much happier position than they are to-day if they could employ a Whip to control the shareholders. Therefore, it is not at all likely, however badly an industry has been administered by a public board, that the directors—who are, ultimately, the Government —will be defeated in another place on this particular issue; and on matters of finance, at any rate, your Lordships would be impotent to take their place in that matter.
In these circumstances, like Lord Samuel, do not know exactly what is the answer to this problem at the present time. It has been suggested that there

611
should be fuller Parliamentary discussion. I think that would be helpful; but I cannot feel that it is the complete answer. Then there has been the suggestion that these nationalised industries and boards should fall within the purview of the Monopolies Commission. In my view, that would be a very good idea. Like most noble Lords in all parts of the House, I do not like monopolies, whether they be private or public, and undoubtedly in the great majority of cases these boards are monopolies: and I should therefore have thought they ought to be subject to the attentions of the Monopolies Commission.
Another suggestion, made, I think, by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was that a Joint Select Committee of both Houses should be appointed to examine this very difficult problem. I like that proposal very much. That is probably the best thing that can be done immediately. If the Government feel that enough experience of the working of these boards and their relationship to Parliament has now been obtained, I do not in the least see why a Joint Select Committee should not be set up to discuss these matters. In any case, I think something should be done to underline the direct responsibility of the Minister concerned. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will agree with that, because he recommended an annual debate, and it is not the slightest good having an annual debate in Parliament, where neither the members nor the chairmen of the boards are represented, unless the Minister is in a position to take full responsibility for the answer which is given in Parliament. At present, there is a rather dangerous tendency for the Minister to unload all awkward questions on the board, and for the board to unload them on the Minister. That is merely human nature. But that is not the way by which Parliament is going to retain control of the affairs of these companies, which are now the responsibility of the British people.
My Lords, it does seem to me—and I hope this will not be regarded as too controversial a remark to make—that it is a fundamental defect of Socialism at present that there is no real control by anybody of the socialised industries. We know that certain of these industries have lost very large sums of money. That may have been inevitable: I am not trying to
612
make a controversial point. But in fact there does not seem to be anybody who can do anything about it, and there does not seem to be any real control that Parliament can exert. I should have thought that that was a matter of as much importance for the Government as for the Opposition, and I hope very much that it is a matter to which they will give very serious consideration. But there is certainly nothing more that we here can do about it to-day. In the meantime, if I may return to the earlier part of the Motion, there is one thing that we on the Front Bench can do—namely, to give advice on the limited matter of the conduct of noble Lords who are chairmen or members of nationalised bodies. That we have tried to do, and in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, we have tried to amplify our advice a little bit this afternoon. I hope he will feel that on the whole we have not done a bad job. But the final decision must rest with the individual Peer, and one can only hope that he will act in the spirit of the advice which we have tried to give him.
4.36 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I should like to speak for a few moments on the first part of this Motion, which is designed to draw attention to the position of Parliament with regard to the administration of nationalised industries. I, for one, am very glad that Lord Strabolgi has raised this matter, because there can be no doubt that there is grave dissatisfaction in the country at the increasing remote control of some of our nationalised industries. I hope that His Majesty's Government will take this matter very seriously indeed, because, if they do not, and if they shut their eyes to what I agree is a very difficult problem, there is trouble in store for these nationalised industries.
Only yesterday, in going through my newspapers in the north before coming down here, I noticed a spate of letters complaining about the railway services and electricity supplies; and even coal comes in for a lot of criticism. All the while the average member of the public (and I speak here just as an ordinary member of the public) feels a sense of great frustration, because he does not know upon which door he should knock in order to get an adequate reply to any reasonable complaint that he may have.

613
I agree that this is going to be very difficult. Already the miners are taking direct action. They have appointed their own committee of investigation and the Coal Board will be compelled to give them every facility, because the miners are so powerful. But sometimes it is rather a different matter when it comes to the ordinary members of the public. Lord Strabolgi has mentioned the railways and the implied threat of the secretary of the National Union of Railway men—
LORD STRABOLGI: If my noble friend will forgive me, I gather, from the lengthy reports in the papers, that Mr. Figgins did not make any sort of threat at all, only a complaint.
LORD CALVERLEY: I should have used the word "complaint." Mr. Figgins has made so many threats during the past few months that we have become used to associating him with threats. However, on this occasion it is a complaint. But in the oil days, especially in another place, if a railway Bill was before the House one had only to say "I object." I remember one Member for Rugby (I have forgotten his name: I was quite young at tile time, but I know that he had a Biblical name) who always objected to every railway Bill until he had made the directors of the railway company promise to provide third-class sleepers. In the end, he won his point. Now, two of the principal chambers of commerce in the West Riding are asking the Railway Executive just for one railway sleeper, and they can take evasive action, saying simply, "We have received your letter, but nothing can be done," or "It shall receive due attention."
In the case of a genuine complaint by the public, we should know where to go for redress; and a Member of Parliament should have the opportunity, not once in ten years, or even once in twelve months, to be able to raise what he considers to be a genuine complaint. I should like to put down a Question about this railway sleeper for Yorkshire. I suppose that if did the Clerks at the Table would say: "It is out of order." I do not know for certain whether that is the case; anyhow, I will try on. But what I want to emphasise to my noble friend who is to reply to this debate is that it is no use the Government attempting to shut their eyes
614
to this problem, or to think that they can "get away with it." If they do so, sooner or later there is going to be a storm in which this Government, for which I have a warm affection, will be involved. And I do not want this Government to get into any trouble that they can possibly avoid. But my noble friend and his colleagues are simply asking for trouble if they take the sort of evasive action which has been taken by the railway authority, the Electricity Board and one or two other bodies, simply because they think they are safe behind barriers. In Yorkshire we have some very fine memorial gates. They are beautiful gates of wrought iron and gold, and they have been set up in order to perpetuate for ever the memory of men who feel their names ought to be immortalised just because they have been permanent officials and have held office for two years or so. I mention these matters because I think—and the letters to the papers that I have mentioned testify to the fact that the general public think so too—that the Government have got to apply themselves to a very difficult problem.
4.43 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH): My Lords, I must say at once, with regard to the second part of the Motion which my noble friend Lord Strabo1gi has moved and which he dealt with first in his speech to the House, that I am sorry that be noble Viscount, Lord Addison, the Leader of the House, is not himself here to answer that part of the noble Lord's speech. I regret his absence because, as Leader of the House, the noble Viscount had so much to do with the settlement and the agreed statement which was made and to which the noble Lord has referred. Also, Lord Addison has had vast experience of these matters and of the procedure of this House, which I, who am still a learner in view of my short stay here, certainly lack. I am still quite a new member of your Lordships' House.
Lord Strabolgi, referring to the statement that the noble Leader of the House made after discussion with the Opposition Parties, rightly pointed out that it arose out of a debate which had taken place on the issue relating to the broadcasting of the play Party Manners. It was then suggested that there should be conversations about the position of Peers

615
who were members of public boards when the House of Lords debated matters affecting the activities of the boards. Neither of the Peers who were connected with it is in his place at the moment, but noble Lords will recall that that statement was based on memoranda exchanged at the time, as well as upon the actual discussions which took place. I should like to make it clear, from my study of the matter from that point onward, that my noble friend may rest assured that there can be no question at all of gagging Peers. The statement made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, a few minutes ago, I think clearly demonstrated that to the House. On that point he is as much in agreement with the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party in your Lordships' House as he is with the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, the Leader of the House.
We all agree that only the Peer concerned can, in the last resort, decide whether he shall speak in the House on a particular occasion, and I am sure it can be taken for granted that he will thoroughly weigh his responsibilities in making up his mind. It is not, of course, a question of his personal wish, or even of the contribution which he can make to the particular debate, for there are wider considerations which he must take into account. This is certainly the case when the House is discussing affairs of a body to which a Peer has been appointed by a Minister and in respect of which the Minister is responsible to Parliament. It appeared to the Government and, I think, to the Opposition Leaders, that it would help the House if they had before them some of the considerations which it seems right that not only the individual Peer but the House as a whole ought to bear in mind. The starting point is that a Peer's speech in a debate about his own board may affect the relationship between boards, Ministers, and Parliament, and there are two main dangers to guard against. First, nothing should be done which might impair the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament. Second, nothing should be done to prejudice the freedom of the boards from meticulous political supervision of their day-to-day management.
As for ministerial responsibility, Ministers, and only Ministers, are responsible to
616
Parliament for the way in which boards are conducted. The responsibility of chairmen and members of boards is to the Minister by whom they are appointed and by whom they may be removed. There seemed to be just a shadow of doubt on that latter point, I thought, in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and I wanted to make the matter clear. Anything which weakens the responsibility of a Minister, ipso facto weakens the authority of Parliament. Parliament can control Ministers, but it has no direct authority over the members of the public boards. It is important, therefore, that a member of a board should not be expected to assume a rôle in accounting to Parliament which is proper to the parent Minister. I was going to make some further remarks on the subject of how that works, but that matter has been so fully covered in what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has said, that I do not think need say much more in detail about it. It is clear that each Peer will decide for himself, and I am sure that when he is reaching his decision he will keep before his mind the general public interest and the views expressed in the statement of March 21. But we cannot have any question of forbidding anyone to speak. Each Peer is free to decide for himself inside those general principles, and I am sure that that would be the general wish of the House.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Will the noble Viscount forgive me for interrupting? I want to make this clear. I am sure the noble Viscount will agree with me—I do not think it has been mentioned but it was in the statement—that the fact that a Peer decides for himself to speak in a particular debate must in no way be regarded as a precedent binding another Peer who is a member of a board to speak in another debate.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I think that that is quite an important reminder of the conclusions covered in the statement which was agreed to by the leaders of all Parties in the House. It is essential that that should be kept in mind. Of course, in a House constituted as this House is, in which every Peer is free to make his own decision, it would be improper to regard anything of the kind as a precedent.
I now turn to what I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is much

617
the more important part of Lord Strabolgi's Motion—the question of Parliamentary control of public boards. It would be foolish for anyone on the Government side of the House to suppose that this matter was not one of widespread interest and the cause of some anxiety. In many directions there is general concern as to what is the best thing to be done with regard to the developing position in socialised industries in relation to public accountability. Perhaps this concern arises because of the strong political feeling of the individual citizen with regard to the services provided by nationalised industries. There is a great deal of political feeling in the matter on both sides—I am not going to attach it to any particular Party. Perhaps there was not so much feeling about public accountability in regard to the public boards which were set up before the war. I have had my attention drawn to a pamphlet, entitled Accountability to Parliament, published last year by the Acton Society Trust and which no doubt many of your Lordships have seen. That publication says:
"Gordon, in his The Public Corporation in Great Britain, noted (in 1937) that the Central Electricity Board had only once been the subject of any adjournment motion, that ministers had 'consistently refused to divulge information about the Board beyond that published in the annual reports and accounts in reply to questions in the House,' and that the Chairman of Committees had ruled that the Board could not he discussed on the annual Ministry of Transport Vote 1. Parliament had even less chance of discussing the London Passenger Transport Board since the minister's powers over this corporation were more restricted."
Therefore the problem, although it has developed with greater urgency and over a wider area now than was the case before the war, is not a new one. No doubt those responsible for setting up the Central Electricity Board and the London Passenger Transport Board had in mind the points so ably made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, this afternoon—namely, the need to secure the greatest possible efficiency by not having interference with the day-to-day management and not having these boards working under less favourable conditions than would generally be accorded to private enterprise. I have no doubt that the Ministers who drew up the plans for the Central Electricity Board and the London Passenger Transport Board, who were of different Party views from the
618
present Ministers, had all those things in mind.
Reference was made, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, to the public accountability secured in such cases as that of the Post Office. Here again I almost hesitate to say anything because of the ability with which a former Post-master-General commented on this subject this afternoon. Reference was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to the Admiralty, in which both he and are interested. The Postmaster-General, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Minister of Supply for the ordnance factories, give the orders. They get advice from their senior departmental officers and departmental committees, but they are responsible for the final instructions. They are responsible for the day-to-day administration of their Departments. But that is an entirely differentposition from that which has been deliberately adopted by Parliament in regard to the nationalised industries, where the boards, and not the Ministers, give the orders. I feel there was a great deal in the points put by my noble friend, Lord Silkin, who has had experience in setting up these boards, since the war, and I would accept a great deal of his advice. But I am not at all sure that at this stage I agree with his suggestion of a grand inquest which is to resolve itself into an annual, or perhaps monthly, debate in Parliament. The general considerations which he put with regard to the conditions under which a board should work, however, were very valuable.
Any new departure on the line of the noble Lord's Motion would require careful study. It would involve legislation, because the present position is based on the strict definition of the powers of the Ministers under the Statutes which have established these boards. The position is the same as it was last October, when this matter was debated in another place and the present Foreign Secretary made a statement which has been referred to in your Lordships' House to-day. If we look at the statement he made then, which. I do not propose to read in detail We shall see that the accountability of Ministers is enlarged by questions in the House, by debates on the Adjournment and on. Supply, by Private Bills, by Prayers, and by actual direct contact with the boards.

619
I suggest to my noble friend, Lord Strabolgi, that he might have another look at the extent to which there is opportunity of checking the policy of Ministers responsible for nationalised industries and for raising matters connected with the efficiency of the boards.
The Government have never sought to lay down rigid rules. They have allowed Parliamentary practice in regard to the boards of nationalised industries to evolve empirically, and significant developments have occurred in the light of experience. There was, for example, Mr. Speaker's ruling on June 7, 1948, when, with the full concurrence of the Government, he said that he would be prepared to pass Questions raising matters of public importance, notwithstanding that they arose out of the day-to-day responsibilities of the board. But, of course, there is a special procedural rule through Mr. Speaker by which that system can be properly checked. Members of the other place have taken advantage even of Second Reading debates on Private Bills promoted by the British Transport Commission to ventilate matters of management, and the use of the Motion for the Adjournment for a similar purpose continues to grow.
I would assure my noble friend Lord Strabolgi that the Government are prepared to listen sympathetically to any other proposals which may be put forward. We feel, however, that there are serious objections to the proposed permanent Joint Select Committee for national industries to which he has referred. Where policy is subject to a detailed Parliamentary scrutiny, it must be justified from financial and other aspects, not only in the long run but also in the short run; every step taken must be justifiable in itself. It is not easy to run commercial undertakings on these lines, and still less easy to justify the setting up of public boards if the work is to be scrutinised in that way. Business men are not accustomed—at least, not all of them —to appearing before a Select Committee and answering for the running of their businesses, and it would take up a great deal of the time of the chairmen and other members of the boards and their principal officers. I hope that it will not be taken too hardly if I say that, with the establishment of a Select Committee, there
620
would be a tendency on both sides for a good many of the Questions to be of a political character, rather than Questions asked from the point of view of achieving the greatest efficiency in the business.
We are in agreement with the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi that there should be periodical inquiries into each nationalised industry. We are not quite so willing to agree to the suggestion that these periodical inquiries should be conducted by a Joint Select Committee. I rather gather that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was fairly well disposed to that part of Lord Strabolgi's suggestion, but my own view—I do not presume to speak for anybody else, not having had consultations since the debate arose—is that it would be premature at this stage to have a Joint Select Committee for that purpose. I think we shall see more clearly in a year or so what is the best method to adopt.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount has made an interesting suggestion about periodical inquiries, but he has not said who would carry them out.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I think the Government are already convinced of the need for a periodical inquiry, but I feel it would be premature for me to say anything further as to the form of such an inquiry. I spoke only for myself when I said that I doubt very much whether a Joint Select Committee would be the best form. It might possibly be that kind of departmental Committee upon which people other than officials could serve.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The purpose of a Joint Select Committee would not be to investigate these individual corporations, but to consider the best method by which they could be investigated, which is quite a different matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I have been trying to marry the general view expressed by Lord Strabolgi with the general approach to the basic principle of the Joint Select Committee mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and I should be the last to wish to misinterpret him. As to the form of the regular periodical inquiry, I feel that it would be an exceedingly good thing for the submission made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to be

621
further considered by the Government, to see whether the question of fixing the form of periodical inquiry should he entirely one ab initio for the Government to announce, or to submit to Parliament, or whether it should follow a preliminary Parliamentary study of the kind which has been suggested.
LORD STRABOLGI: My noble friend will forgive me if I interrupt. I am most encouraged by the fact that the idea of a periodical inquiry commends itself, but the most important suggestion in connection with that proposal is that whoever undertakes the inquiry should be assisted by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Has that been considered, too?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I think so, but it is not at all certain that in the kind of wide range of operations of these vast boards—the railways, iron and steel, and coal, for example—it would always be possible for them to be adequately covered by the Comptroller and Auditor General. To find exactly the right person for the kind of inquiry that my noble friend has suggested would be a most difficult matter. On the other hand, it occurs to me—at the moment I make no statement for anybody other than myself—that there might be an inquiry by what would usually be regarded as a departmental Committee, but which would also include independent people—those qualified for the different functions to be covered by the inquiry—and, therefore, run on an entirely satisfactory basis. On that I make no final statement at all.
What I do say, however, is that in regard to these vast undertakings it is quite impossible to contemplate inquiries of this sort at very short intervals; one cannot continuously be pulling up these great organisations by the roots to see how they are getting on. On that I gather that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, agrees with our point of view. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, when speaking about this matter in another capacity last October, suggested seven years as a possible period which Parliament might be willing to approve for this kind of periodical inquiry into these large and important undertakings. I suggest that that is certainly something for us all to confer about and consider. Each report from such an inquiry would be
622
presented to Parliament, and would then be debated. If I may say so to my noble friend Lord Silkin, that would be the best day on which to have the kind of debate that he thought might take place annually. Such inquiries as we have been proposing would, therefore, represent a further step forward in the direction of public accountability.
I conclude by saying that, while I may not agree with every word that Lord Rennell said, or with every facet of the comments of the noble Marquess, I agree with a large amount of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. Irrespective of Party, we are all anxious that these boards should be brought to the highest pitch of efficiency and of the greatest service to the people. From that point of view the House may rest assured that we shall give every possible attention to the matter to see how we can implement in the best possible manner these inquiries about which we have been speaking.
5.10 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, not only for the substance of his reply, but for his sympathetic attitude. I do not propose to press for Papers, because such a volume of Papers has already been issued containing these tremendous and monumental reports of all these Corporations. I found the greatest difficulty in lifting up my bundle in my office in preparation for this debate. In view of the paper shortage I do not intend to press for more printed matter. We have reports in abundance. Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to make one point, and also one comment or what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, before I ask leave to withdraw my Motion. This departmental inquiry with outside members, which my noble friend Lord Alexander seems to favour, or apparently the Government seem to favour, does not involve Parliament at all, except that, when the report is made—a voluminous report—we should then have what my noble friend Lord Silkin calls the grand inquest, with a great many members who do not know the details debatingthe report. Whereas if we have a Joint Committee, of Parliament, the men who have heard the evidence and gane through the, documents and so on, can tell Parliament directly whether or not there is anything

623
wrong. That is the value of the Parliamentary Committee. That is democratic, and I press my noble friend to reconsider this matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I was speaking solely for myself. I was speaking as to the possible alternative forms of inquiry. I was saying merely that there were certain alternatives.
LORD STRABOLGI: That is why I am so hopeful—my noble friend is in a flexible state of mind. A departmental Committee of outside members will not satisfy us, because there is always the suspicion underneath that "Dog does not eat dog". If you set up a committee of civil servants to inquire into the doings of other civil servants or semi-civil servants, the public will not be satisfied. I am sure it was my fault, but I think the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, misunderstood me. When I was talking about the position of Peers who are chairmen of these boards and so on, I was not for a moment suggesting that they should be subject to an interrogation by your Lordships on the working of their boards. What I had in mind was this, and I still think there is a great deal in it. Supposing that we are having a general debate on transport—and no subject is more important, in the present economic state of the country—would it not be advantageous to hear the views of my noble friend Lord Hurcomb if he were prepared to intervene? I cannot imagine that he would say anything at variance with what the Minister read out from his official brief.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that point was covered by what I said. I said that I did not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that in no circumstances could a Peer intervene on a debate on his own subject, but that he would have to act with due discretion. He should not be the representative of his board in this House. That is what I think would be wrong.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am glad that the noble Marquess is exhibiting the hereditary tendency to safeguard the rights and prerogatives of the Peers, and I most humbly support him. The other example of this sort of thing occurs with civil aviation. The idea that my noble friend Lord
624
Douglas of Kirtleside should sit here dumb and silent, when I suppose he is the greatest authority we could have on the question, because of his Service and civil experience, is, I think, grotesque; and the idea that he would say something at variance with Ministerial policy is also grotesque.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would not accept that.
LORD STRABOLGI: I know the views of the noble Marquess. As for my noble friend Lord Alexander's remarks on this matter, so far as I can gather he says that these noble Peers on national boards can do what they like, but if they do they will be sacked. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CHEMICALS AND FOOD SUPPLIES
5.15 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH rose to call attention to the dangers to national health arising from the increasing use of poisonous chemicals in the growing and preparation of foodstuffs, and to the need for strict control over all processes which may affect the natural quality of food; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, only two or three generations ago, mankind existed upon naturally occurring foods, either eaten raw or prepared by such simple means as roasting or boiling and, in some cases, preserved for further use by smoking or salting. All that is now changed. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find any natural article of food which has not been treated with chemicals, had some part extracted, been exposed to high temperatures or preserved for long periods in cold storage, or otherwise processed or tampered with. I do not say that science can never find means of improving foodstuffs, but I do say that the addition of extraneous matters, and especially of synthetic chemicals, should be looked upon with the gravest suspicion and should not be permitted except under the most strenuous conditions. This subject has hitherto received too little attention in this country, and the steps taken to protect the public have been hesitating, partial and inadequate.
The gravity of the situation has been revealed in the United States by the well-organised and continuing work of the Federal Food and Drug Administration, which has listed no fewer than 842 chemicals used or proposed to he used in food. Some are no longer used because they were definitely found to be poisonous. The majority are still in use, some very extensively; and in many cases it is not clearly established whether they are poisonous or not. The absolute determination of the toxicity of a chemical added to food requires long and very complex investigations. The chemical may not be toxic in itself, but may combine with substances naturally present in the food to form toxic compounds. It may be very slow acting but cumulative in its effects. It may be one of those which are stored in the body, and the ill-effects of which become evident only after certain concentration has been passed. It may be a racial poison which interferes with reproduction or injures the next generation.
Last year a Select Committee of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States was set up, with very wide terms of reference, to investigate the use of chemicals in the growing, preparation and handling of food. It has held numerous meetings and taken a large volume of important evidence, but so far as I know has not yet reported. Since this Motion was placed on the Order Paper, Sir Edward Mellanby, who was for some time the distinguished Secretary of the Medical Research Council, has, in a lecture on the chemical manipulation of food, drawn attention to the far-reaching implications of this practice and the need for action. I understand that his paper has now been published.
Let me explain now, with some examples, the nature and the gravity of this matter. There are two principal ways in which chemicals are added to food. One is as an incident of effecting another purpose. This happens when insecticides, fungicides and weed-killers are used in agriculture, and, in some cases, where fumigants or disinfectants are used during process of manufacture, or where detergents are used for washing food or for washing crockery and food containers. The other is where chemicals are introduced with the express intention of altering the nature of the food or of preserv-
626
ing it beyond its normal life. Besides these there are the cases in which the quality of the food is altered by exposure to very high temperatures, causing chemical reactions in its constituents.
I do not propose to deal with the use of artificial fertilisers in agriculture, beyond saying that it is now admitted, even by ardent advocates of them, that unbalanced use of such fertilisers may easily produce a luxuriant plant growth which is also unbalanced: there may be too little protein, and the human being or the animal fed upon it this green stuff suffers injury to health or lowered resistance to disease. It is also of interest to note that lack of proper fertilisation renders the plants themselves more liable to fungus diseases and to attacks by insects or other pests, leading to increased use of insecticides and fungicides. It has long been common to use sprays or washes on fruit trees in order to discourage the attacks of mites or insects. A number of these sprays are probably harmless, although, in this whole matter, we should take nothing for granted. Some are definitely toxic; for example, lead arsenate, which, like other compounds of lead, is accumulated in the body with the possibility of its ultimately reaching a dangerous level.
I shall say no more about the older insecticides. It is the newer ones, and the enormous extent of their use, which give most cause for alarm. The most famous of these is D.D.T. which, since the war, has been applied all over the world without any adequate investigation of its effects upon health. It is highly toxic. Test animals—rats, for example—fed with 1 per cent. carbolic acid lived and did fairly well; those fed with one part per million of D.D.T. perished—and one part per million is equivalent to one teaspoonful in ten tons of food. Not only is D.D.T. highly toxic but it is fat soluble. Consequently, it may accumulate in the body fats, through repeated small doses, until a toxic concentration is reached. Or, if this concentration has been approached and, owing to illness or for other reasons, the body is consuming its store of fat, the concentration then becomes toxic and the patient is attacked at the very time when his resistance is lowered. Not only is D.D.T. exceptionally toxic, but there is no known antidote. It is absorbed by plants and cannot be removed. Hence, all fruits and

627
vegetables which have been exposed to D.D.T. are carriers of it to the consumers. Animals fed on hay or other food exposed to it are affected. Owing to its solubility in fat, milk is especially affected by it. The spraying of D.D.T. in cowsheds has been found sufficient to affect the milk, and in the United States dairy farmers have been officially advised not to do this. Butter sold on the New York market has been found with as much as thirteen parts per million of this dangerous drug. The fact that D.D.T. has such an affinity for milk constitutes a serious danger for infants, and for young children who are encouraged to drink large quantities of milk. Even breast-fed infants are not safe, for mothers' milk has been found containing appreciable quantities of D.D.T. In passing, I may mention that D.D.T. has also been found in cigarettes up to as much as four parts per million—presumably due to the spraying of the tobacco leaf.
Other extremely toxic substances are now being used as insecticides, such as H.E.T.P., T.E.P.C., and parathion. They were invented by the Germans as war gases but not actually used as such. They are so dangerous that those who use them must be covered from head to foot with protective clothing. Already a number of fatal accidents have occurred to farm workers spraying with insecticides. This has engaged the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture, and a working party under the chairmanship of Professor Zuckerman has recently reported this aspect of their use. Unfortunately, little is known of the effect of these chemicals on the foodstuffs to which they are applied or upon the health of the men and women who consume the foodstuffs. There are on record, however, at least two cases in which people have developed illness which appeared to be due to flour containing one part per million of parathion. The illness ceased upon another flour being used in which none of this poison was found.
I may also remind your Lordships that when fruit trees are sprayed about 95 per cent. of the spray falls on the ground; and if this ground should be used for growing other crops, those crops will receive a far higher concentration of the poison than the fruit trees. I do not know what the figures are for this country—perhaps the noble Lord who is to speak for the Government can say—but
628
in the United States in the year 1947 no less than 150,000,000 lb. of insecticides were produced. This is practically one pound per head of the population; and if only a very small fraction of that finds its way into the human body the cumulative results may be catastrophic.
Before I leave the agricultural side of this matter I should like to mention the use of antibiotics and hormones. As a result of treating an inflammation of the udder of one cow with penicillin, it was found that the milk was affected to such an extent that it destroyed the organisms essential for cheese-making. The effect was so powerful that it persisted even when the milk was mixed with that of 200 other cows. I noticed recently a similar case reported from France, where the production of Camembert cheese had been frustrated for the same reason. An indirect result of consuming milk thus infected with penicillin or other antibiotics is that the consumer might perhaps become resistant to this remedy in such fashion that, if it were prescribed for some illness, he would receive no benefit. Another example of these new techniques is the use of a hormone powder called tuberite for the purpose of suppressing the sprouts of potatoes. I do not know whether it is for this or other reasons that in recent years it has become almost impossible to purchase potatoes of good quality in London. Other hormones are used as weed-killers, but it does not follow that, because they have a selective action on weeds, they do not affect other plants and the persons who consume them. It is well known that hormones are extremely potent in very small quantities and may have most dangerous effects.
These agricultural procedures are not confined to one country. Imported food is as liable to be affected as home-grown food. I have heard of oranges being sprayed with D.D.T., the fruit when picked being dyed and then waxed. I should not like to eat marmalade made from fruit so treated. Recently, I noticed that a proposal is under consideration for preventing the spread of swollen shoot disease among the cocoa trees of the Gold Coast. The principle of it is that the sap of the tree should be induced to imbibe a poison that will kill the mealy bug by which the disease is transmitted from tree to tree. The idea is ingenious, but what effect will the poison have upon

629
the cocoa bean, upon the cocoa derived from it, and upon the health of the consumers of cocoa and chocolate in this country and elsewhere? The effects of poisons used in agriculture received some attention at the Second International Conference on Crop Protection held in London in 1949. The Conference was presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who dealt with this matter at some length in his presidential address. He has authorised me to say that, but for an important and longstanding engagement, he would have been here to-day to take part in this discussion and that, without committing himself to any detail of the argument which I am addressing to your Lordships, he considers that this matter deserves the serious attention of the Government.
Let me now deal with the use of chemicals in the processing of foodstuffs. Flour is the outstanding example of a food subjected to chemical manipulation. Various chemicals are used to bleach the flour, because it is said that the public insist upon having an absolutely white bread. It is somewhat strange that they do not insist upon having many other articles of food bleached also. At any rate, it is clear that the public generally are quite unaware of the means by which this result is brought about, and of the toxicity of the chemicals used. Some chemicals are used for "maturing" flour in the space of a few hours, whereas nature takes weeks to effect this, and also for giving to inferior flour the characteristics of better flour Others are used for the purpose of inducing flour to rise more, in order to produce a loaf which contains more air and water, two substances which may be rather dearly bought in this way.
The most widely used of these so-called "improvers" of flour is nitrogen trichloride, commercially known as agene. After this chemical had been in use for about a quarter of a century, its toxic effects were discovered by Sir Edward Mellanby. The remarkable thing is that this discovery, like many other notable scientific discoveries, was made almost by accident. Professor Mellanby noticed that dogs which were being kept for another experiment were developing nervous disorders, which became progressively more grave and ended in epileptic seizures and death. In a research which is a classic of its kind, he traced the cause of the illness to food made from flour which had been
630
treated with agene. His results were published in December, 1946. They were taken notice of immediately by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, which caused independent investigations to be undertaken. The results, which confirmed Mellanby's findings, were published on November 22, 1947, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, together with a letter from the Chairman of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs advising him that the treatment of flour with agene should be discontinued.
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord leaves that particular subject, may I ask him whether the results of the researches in America showed that this particular substance was deleterious to the human stomach?
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I will come to that point in a moment. The use of agene has been discontinued in the United States. It took several years longer for a decision in principle to be reached in this country, and only a few weeks ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food stated that about 90 per cent. of the flour consumed in this country was agenised. By way of excuse, I suppose, for this delay, it has frequently been stated that there is no evidence of injury to human beings arising from the use of agenised flour. There is abundant evidence that it is toxic to dogs and other mammals. Some people may he able to believe that nature by some queer chance has given human beings a special immunity from a poison which, until some thirty years ago, their bodies had never encountered. That notion flatly contradicts the whole principle of evolution and the adaptation of man to his environment.
LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt the noble Lord once more? I think he is taking his argument rather far. It is important that the British people should not believe that 90 per cent. of their bread is poisoned. Salt is quite toxic to the domestic fowl, yet the noble Lord and I can swallow salt. If I swallow sharp bones they will simply kill me, but they do not kill the dog. Surely the noble Lord cannot claim that a dog's interior and that of a human is the same in every respect.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The noble Lord will perhaps remember that the whole basis of medical research is conducted by means of experiments upon animals, and the results of those experiments are not to be disregarded. It is true that in this particular case nobody has identified anybody as having died because of eating agenised food, but the cumulative effects over many years may reveal themselves in quite unexpected forms, and I, for one, at any rate, take care to procure bread made from flour which has not been chemically treated. It has now been discovered that the toxic factor in agenised flour is a compound formed between the agene and the protein in the wheat. This illustrates the important fact that, even if a chemical used in the treatment of food is in itself relatively harmless, it may combine with some of the numerous substances of which food is composed to form a new and extremely toxic product.
I have dealt with this question of agene in some detail because, as the noble Lord says, almost everyone has been exposed to it, because it exemplifies the subtle nature of the perils arising from chemicals in foodstuffs, and because authoritative warnings about its possible danger seem to have been completely disregarded. In 1927 the Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Flour with Chemical Substances reported on the use of chlorine as a bleaching agent. They pointed out that it reacted with various constituents of the flour to form addition products, and that no harm to the body was likely to result from the chlorine itself but that the compounds formed might "act injuriously." They also pointed out that it might "irremediably impair the nutritive qualities of the flour" by affecting the vitamins which are present in small quantities and are very susceptible to mere traces of chemical reagents. The Committee went to to say that these observations applied also to the use of nitrogen trichloride, or agene, which is very highly reactive and on which they had evidence that its action on the protein of flour was probably similar. That was twenty-four years ago.
My Lords, flour deserves our attention because in the form of bread, cakes, biscuits, pastry and otherwise, it is the most important element of our diet, especially of those who are less well off, and also
632
because it is the deliberate intention of the flour millers, with the assent of the Ministry of Food, to substitute other so-called "improvers" in place of agene. Let us hope that after another twenty-five years have elapsed it will not be revealed that the substitute, too, has toxic effects. Flour and its products have been particularly unfortunate in the number of chemicals used upon them. In addition to the bleaching agents and improvers, there is a large class of substances euphemistically known by trade names as emulsifiers, softeners, and fat-extenders, which are used in baking bread and cakes or in the preparation of patent flours and cake mixtures. I could not attempt to enumerate or to describe all these substances without keeping your Lordships here for many hours. Let me take but one example. Certain chemicals called polyoxyethyline stearates are used and sold under the name of bread softeners, upon the plea that they produce a larger loaf and that they displace part of the lard used for shortening. They are known commercially under various trade names, such as S-541, "Sta-soft," and so on. One manufacturer alone in the United States during a period of a little over three years sold more than 7,000,000 lb. of one of these products. But another manufacturer after experimenting upon rats, hamsters, and rabbits, discovered that this substance was highly toxic. It affected the kidneys and caused testicular and gastric troubles. I will only add that the use of bread softeners has been banned in the mental hospitals of New York State. But the health of those outside mental hospitals is also important. The very nomenclature of these things is deceptive. "Fat extenders" are substitutes for fat and reduce the nutritive value. "Anti-staling agents" are food preservatives enabling bread and cakes to be kept longer by the manufacturer or vendor before reaching the consumer, but nevertheless it has not been proved that the food does not deteriorate by keeping.
Then in addition to the kinds of chemicals I have mentioned there are whole classes of sweetening agents used as substitutes for sugar, flavouring agents, colouring matter or dyes. Of the sweeteners I may mention P.4000 and dulcin. These have been found to be definitely toxic, although dulcin at least was in common use for many years.

633
Among the substances which have been used as colouring matter were a class of Azo dyes which are known now to be toxic and to be a cause of liver tumours in test animals. One of these dyes was long used under the pleasant name of "butter-yellow," but is now known to be carcinogenic. Mineral oils have been used in the preparation of foodstuffs. Not only do they have no nutritive value, but because of their capacity for absorbing and immobilising certain vitamins they actually deprive the body of essential elements in the diet.
LORD HAWKE: When the noble Lord speaks about their being toxic and depriving the body, and so on and so forth, is he referring to the human body or an animal body?
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am referring to the human body. If the vitamins are absorbed by a mineral oil and taken out of your food and rendered useless to you, that is injurious to the whole body. Let me give one illustration of a drink, as distinguished from a foodstuff. Drinks are perhaps not expected to be very nutritious, but we do not expect them to be poisonous. Among the most popular drinks in the United States (and I notice that they are beginning to gain a market here), are the cola drinks. They are composed of phosphoric acid, sugar, caffeine, colouring, and flavouring matter. Although the amount of phosphoric acid may appear to the uninitiated to be small, this acid is so powerful that it rapidly affects the teeth and dissolves the enamel. At the United States Naval Medical Research Institute human teeth were put into a cola beverage, and within a very short time they softened and started to dissolve. They became very soft in forty-eight hours. Experiments upon living teeth in animals showed that the drinking of cola beverages immediately began to erode the teeth, and ultimately they eroded down to the gums.
I will not multiply examples, of which I could give your Lordships many, but let me draw attention to the fact that one article of food may at different stages have chemicals injected into it for various purposes. The wheat or flour may have been affected by D.D.T. used as an insecticide; it has probably been treated with agene or other bleaching agents or
634
improvers. The baker may add to it fat-extenders, emulsifiers or anti-staling agents. A cake-mix may also have added to it, in addition, flavouring or colouring matter. The sum total becomes rather alarming. Moreover, other articles of food consumed by the same person may contain still more chemicals. The manufacturers of these chemicals will say, and, no doubt, honestly, that they have no evidence that the things they are selling are harmful to human beings. We know now that this is not true in the case of many chemical additives to food which have been used for many years, and we have no right to assume, without the most stringent proof, that it is true of the others.
The fact is that man, having a relatively much longer life than animals used in medical research, may in the end suffer serious injury by the continued ingestion of relatively small quantities of these alien substances; and such effects are very difficult to detect. It is, however, significant that there has been an increase in recent years in the incidence of diseases having a neurological component, such as duodenal ulcers, schizophrenia, and disseminated sclerosis. It will be remembered that agene, for example, has a neurological effect upon test animals. Some may believe that men have become less able to cope with strain and worry, but it seems to me reasonable to assume that there are more definite and specific reasons for the increase in such diseases. Another significant fact is that the number of yearly deaths from cancer in this country is more than three times as great as it was fifty years ago. It has been definitely established that certain chemicals which have been widely used in food give rise to cancer of the liver and other organs in animals. In human beings, it is very difficult to establish the actual cause of cancer, but the rise in the number of deaths from this disease in a period in which the use of chemicals in food has increased so rapidly gives ground for reflection, if not for anxiety about the future trend of events.
Let me proceed to draw some conclusions. The first is that the law relating to the sale of food is defective in that, as a general rule, the onus of proving that something injurious has been added is thrown on the consumer or on the authorities responsible for food inspection.

635
I have pointed out to your Lordships the difficulties of proving this, and the long time which may elapse before such proof is forthcoming: in the interval the poisonous article is put on the market with impunity. I would go further, and say that with few, if any, exceptions the use of chemicals in the preparation of foodstuffs should be prohibited. This principle is well stated in the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Flour with Chemical Substances, published in 1927. The Committee said:
"The object of maintaining inviolate the purity of the flour supply we regard as inspired by sound instinct, and we think that the responsibility for relaxing the principle is a very grave one, particularly at a time when research is beginning to throw new light upon the existence and properties of the more subtle constituents of foodstuffs."
They also said:
"Our view is that flour should be the product of milling wheat without the addition of any foreign substance."
These seem to me to be wise words, and applicable to all foodstuffs.
As a corollary, it should be made an offence—if it is not so already by Statute or by Common Law—to use any kind of chemical (such for example as fat-extenders) as a substitute for a natural foodstuff.
Secondly, all food should be labelled with a precise and clear statement of what it contains, and stating the quantity or proportions of each constituent. This is doubly important if the addition or any chemicals is permitted. The third conclusion to be drawn is that this matter should he under the supervision of one strong, well-staffed and well-equipped central department, free from association with any trade influences. It should not be left to the unco-ordinated efforts of sanitary inspectors, medical officers of health and public analysts to try to detect the use of chemicals and their potential dangers. Local authorities have insufficient resources for discharging such complicated and difficult functions. Even if they had adequate resources, to leave such matters to their unaided efforts would result in a wasteful multiplication of effort.
The toxicity or otherwise of these articles can be discovered only by prolonged and expensive experiments,
636
because among the questions to be answered are these. What is the cumulative effect over years, or over a lifetime? Does the chemical affect reproductive capacity? Is it a racial poison? It is beyond the wit of any private organisation or of local health departments to keep pace with the ingenuity of the chemist and the food manufacturer. Many associations of food producers have research organisations, often assisted by Government grants, constantly engaged upon devising new methods of treating foodstuffs for the purpose of increasing the sales and the profits therefrom. What is needed is a central department free from all dependence upon commercial research bodies. The proper Ministry appears to me to be the Ministry of Health. The Ministries of Food and of Agriculture are in a sense concerned, but neither of them deals with the whole field, and both of them have associations which could conceivably be a handicap in undertaking this new task. I am therefore suggesting that the Government should take energetic and immediate steps to set up such an organisation and to pass legislation prohibiting, or at least severely restricting, the use of chemicals in the preparation, and as ingredients, of food, and requiring a full and accurate disclosure of the substances contained in all articles sold as food which do not literally and completely conform to the description by which they are sold. I beg to move for Papers.
6.0 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am sorry that there is not a large attendance of your Lordships to listen to the discussion of this important subject which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch. I propose to deal shortly with one or two aspects of the subject, but not in such a technical manner as the noble Lord, who covered a great deal of ground of great importance. I am glad to see that there is one noble Lord representing the medical profession in the Chamber. There were two, but I think the other noble Lord has gone. That is rather a pity, because this is the sort of debate in which the medical profession can be of great help to us. I should like to tell you about an organisation with which I have been in touch for a great many years—namely, the Cheshire Panel of Doctors. Noble

637
Lords who are in the medical profession will know that this organisation deals with what is called live food: that is, food that has not been processed. I remember having a discussion with one of the chiefs of the Cheshire Panel, in which he told me this story. He said he was not a gynæcologist, but often farmers in Cheshire who married girls from the towns came to him after a few years of married life and wanted advice because they had no children. His answer to that was to ask, "What do you eat?" Then he would tell them that, judging by what they ate, it was unlikely that they would have any children. He would add, "Eat live food, then you will have a right to be disappointed if you cannot produce life. You must eat food that has life in it, if you are going to produce live and healthy children."
I am particularly keen on the question of 100 per cent. bread. I have taken part in many debates in this House on the question of extraction. I make my own bread at home. I grind the wheat in my house on a small stone mill and make the bread immediately afterwards. I get 100 per cent. extraction that way. If I put my loaf of 100 per cent. wholemeal bread to bed, so to speak, with a loaf of national bread for one night, my bread is mouldy in the morning. What is the cause of that? There, must be something in the national bread that is definitely poisonous to life. This morning I was finishing a loaf at least a week old and it was perfectly fresh. I would not have had that benefit if it were national bread. I am getting on in years now and have eaten this type of bread for more years than I like to think of, and I have got it to a perfect state. People laugh at me and say, "Old Uncle Wholemeal again!" I should like the noble Lord who is to reply to see, when the matter is next raised, that at school meals 100 per cent. wholemeal bread should be served, if bread is served at all.
I was chairman of a departmental committee on the subject of teeth and dentistry which sat for two and a half years and all the evidence, some of which was given by noble Lords in this House, showed that unquestionably teeth are affected by the bread we eat. The evidence given to the committee also showed the importance of water. The towns of North Shields and South Shields,
638
on either side of the river, have different water supplies, and while the condition of the teeth of the people in both towns is bad, in one town—at this time of day I cannot remember which one—the condition of the teeth is 100 per cent. worse than in the other. It was discovered that this was due to the condition of the water. From what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has said, it is clear that fresh food is of the utmost importance. I can remember some years ago attending a lecture by Professor Jack Drummond, in which he said something like this: "When you go into your garden and cut a lettuce, it means you have killed that living plant. The sooner you eat it, the better. It will retain life up to a point, but it will not retain life very long." Yet we see trains laden with vegetables travelling up to London and back into the country again, the vegetables deteriorating in their nutritional value more and more with every hour. I hope some thought will he given to seeing how we can avoid these long journeys for fresh food.
This question of health diet is of enormous importance to us. We all know the effect of wrong nutrition on our animals. They eat something, and quickly it is demonstrated that something has gone wrong with them. They cannot take Maclean's stomach powder; and they have not access to the bar where they can take a good stiff brandy if they have the "tummy-ache." Surely, what applies to the animals applies to us. The noble Lord mentioned cancer, and duodenal ulcer, diseases which are enormously on the increase at the moment. How often to-day do we hear that footballers, cricketers and athletes generally have a tendency to rheumatics; that some fellow has pulled a muscle, or that something else has gone wrong with him. There seems to be a great increase of that sort of thing. Even some of the champions have trouble of that kind. I am certain that it is entirely due to feeding. If your feeding is right, you will be healthy.
The noble Lord has dealt with the production of food, and I will not say anything about that matter. But look at the state of our hospitals! They are groaning with patients, and in many cases they have a waiting list. There must he something wrong and, from the evidence we

639
have, I should say that it is entirely due to feeding. It is not that we do not get enough food, but that we do not get the right type. A friend of mine travelled round the world for three months on business, and when he came back he looked very fit, but had lost a lot of weight. When I asked him if he was all right he said that he was, and the reason why he had lost weight was because, when he was abroad, he could get the food to which he was accustomed and which agreed with him, with the result that he lost some sixteen or eighteen pounds. But he could not get that food here.
There is one other matter which I should like to mention. I raised this question years ago. I gave statistics then, and I have no doubt that they are just as bad now. Just think of the amount of money that is expended on curing or trying to cure people who are ill, not only here but throughout the world—it amounts to hundreds of millions of pounds. And then think how much money is expended on trying to prevent people from becoming ill. There is not nearly enough spent on research and investigation into the reasons why people get ill. This is not a political question, and I hope that the Government will go seriously into it and see whether they cannot find money for further investigation into why there is so much sickness in this country and all over the world. I am certain that it will be found to be nothing more nor less than a question of feeding. I thank the noble Lord for having raised this question, and I hope that some good will come from our debate.
6.15 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has marshalled such a mass of evidence, and placed it before us so clearly, that he has left very little for his supporters to say. I have brought with me a copy of Sir Edward Mellanby's lecture on the chemical manipulation of food, to which the noble Lord referred, and I had intended to give a summary of it. However, as the noble Lord went through his speech I checked Sir Edward Mellanby's points, and substantially the noble Lord has made most of them. Therefore, your Lordships will be glad to hear that I am discarding my notes, and I will merely say a few words, sometimes bringing out
640
Sir Edward Mellanby's points. I think it is clear, after the two speeches to which we have listened, that the Government are bound to take this matter seriously, and to have a full inquiry of some kind into it. I wish to ask the noble Earl who is to reply whether he will bring to the notice of the Government, when any such inquiry is under consideration, the following Resolution which was agreed to by this House on October 24, 1945, after a discussion on bread:
"That the health of the population should be the guiding principle to govern the nutritional policy of the Government, and that in applying that principle to the case of bread, the health of the consumer should be the primary factor, and milling and other interests should he developed in harmony with this policy."
It is most important that the health of the population and not these secondary points that are so often made, should be the guiding principle.
There have been a few points on which the noble Lord's opinions have been queried, and on these I will try to give your Lordships the views of Sir Edward Mellanby. I suppose that Sir Edward Mellanby is the greatest authority in the world on this question. Since his retirement a year or two ago he has been in constant demand all over the world. He has been to America, to Canada and, this year, to India and a few days ago he left for Australia. On the eve of his departure he sent me a copy of his lecture, which was being printed, and gave me discretion to make such use of it as I thought fit in this debate. One of the points of difference—perhaps the most important—is whether what applies to animals applies also to man. Sir Edward Mellanby dealt with that point to some extent In his lecture. On the point of agene he says:
"No species of animal yet tested has failed to show severe toxic symptoms of the central nervous system to the active principle—methionine-sulphoximine—when these tests have been systematically made, and it would be remarkable if man were an exception, especially if the dosage were raised."
The fact is that animals show different amounts of resistance to these things, but it is evidently his view—at least he has a suspicion—that man is liable to these dangers. Speaking in particular of the chronic effects of agene, which, after all, has been in use for thirty years, he says:

641
"We certainly have enough chronic degenerative diseases of the nervous system of unknown etiology to suggest that the matter is worthy of consideration. The present apparent official complacency to the ingestion of agenised flour in this country is disturbing not only in itself but because it indicates a reluctance to consider seriously the wider problem of chemical manipulation of food and its relation to health aril disease."
If agene has these extraordinary effects on the nervous system of dogs, and of all animals on which it has been tried, are we really prepared to assume that it will have none on mankind? It is during recent years that such strange developments have taken place. For my part, I have long felt that this question of agene might be connected with these sudden unofficial strikes and unrest which occur among the poorer section of the population who are great consumers of bread. If they are large consumers of bread, and that bread is agenised, it gives one something to think about.
My noble friend Lord Teviot referred to the report on teeth, which certainly brought out the effect of bread upon teeth. Mellanby says in his lecture that these questions are constantly cropping up. What Jo I see in to-day's Press? It is reported rather fully in the Daily Telegraph, and to a certain extent in The Times, that the new President of the Dental Association has said:
"If all sweet shops were prohibited by law, no doubt an impossible Utopia, then the dental surgeon's work with children would largely disappear."
He went on to emphasise that glucose, which is easily fermentable into acid, was a greater danger than ordinary sugar. Some of the chemicals mentioned by the noble Lord concerned sugar. One of them is 4,000 times sweeter than the equivalent quantity of cane sugar; it was mentioned by Mellanby as one of the articles which should be prohibited. I am not sure that it has not been prohibited—in fact, I rather think that it has been. Returning once more to the reported speech of the President of the Dental Association, the report quotes him in the following words:
"Dental disease was a disease of civilisation, and the most prevalent of all diseases of practically every civilised race."
In the late war, 97 per cent. of the recruits requited dental treatment. If that problem can be tackled by improving
642
our food, surely the Government ought to go into this with the utmost care. It has been stated for so long. One can go back a very long way to what the Medical Research Council has said on this subject.
I can give one example, on which I may say that I have modelled my whole life, which I have practised for seventeen years, and upon which my whole health has depended. This was a report produced by the Medical Research Council in 1937-38, of which Mellanby was the Secretary and the life and soul. That report says:
"A much greater consumption of milk and other products, of eggs, of vegetables, including potatoes"—
eaten, of course, with their skins, unless they have been subjected to some of the processes which the noble Lord mentioned—
"of fruits, and of fat fish, at the expense of bread, sugar and sweets… "
It sounds too simple. If the Government would have the courage to adopt the proposals of the noble Lord who moved the Motion and the proposals of Sir Edward Mellanby in his lecture—which is now printed—and would spread among the people the simple precepts which I have quoted, and tell them how to apply them, as they and their predecessors have done in the case of infants and young children, for which they deserve the utmost credit, they would do more to improve the positive health, physique and resistance to disease of the nation than all the miles and miles of hospitals, still inadequate, which have been provided and the costly niagara of medicines which are pouring down the throats of the people. Mann ist Wass er isst as the punning German proverb says—" Man is what he eats." I absolutely agree with every word which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has said on that subject.
Now is the time for the Government to act. Defence must have first priority in expenditure, and I am not suggesting that the Government can do anything else. Nevertheless, I submit that this is the time to tackle the health measures: it will cost nothing, except the price of the same sort of continuous propaganda by which the Government put over the question of cod liver oil, orange juice and so on for

643
children. As for the adults, you can get their teeth right; you can get the soldiers' teeth right, if only you can get over to them that it is a matter of good bread and of these other simple formulae of the Medical Research Council. Moreover, not only can you get health, but you can get economy. Another passage from the same prophetic report of the Medical Research Council says:
"Only by improving the general health and eliminating disease can it be hoped to reduce the present tendency of ever-increasing medical services "—
that was seventeen years or so ago—
"and the annual expenditure of between £200,000,000 and £300,000,000 which such services necessitate."
6.32 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY,MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I am sure we are all glad that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, has raised this novel and important subject this afternoon. It is indeed a novel subject; the problem is one which has arisen only during the last twenty or thirty years. It is important because it affects all the inhabitants of this country, except possibly breast-fed infants—though Lord Douglas cast doubts even on that small section. By way of reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, I can give him the assurance that he asked for in the first part of his speech. The guiding principle of food policy is the health of the population, and I hope that in my subsequent remarks I shall show how this policy is being applied. I noticed that the noble Lord quoted from the philosopher Feuerbach the saying that:
"Man is what he eats."
The noble Lord will remember that Feuerbach, who was a colleague of Marx, was trying to discredit Hegel, and perhaps it should be said from this side that the noble Lord was presumably not using that remark of the German philosopher in order to defend materialism, whether of the Marxian or any other variety.
Noble Lords will agree that we must keep a sense of proportion about this matter. We want people to exercise reasonable care about what they eat. On the other hand, we do not want them to feel unreasonably alarmed or that they are being slowly poisoned by the food that they have eaten for the last
644
twenty or thirty years—with enjoyment until they read Lord Douglas's speech in Hansard. If I might criticise what, if I may say so, was certainly an interesting and well-informed speech, I thought it was slightly alarmist in tone. It is important that the public should not be unduly frightened or alarmed about what they eat.
I should like now to reply to one or two points made by Lord Douglas. I think he tended to exaggerate the toxicity of D.D.T. There is no record of death or illness in this country from the use of this insecticide; and, of course, it is an extremely important means of killing insects harmful to crops, including the malarial mosquito. Then the sweetening agents to which he referred—P4000 and dulcin—are not used in this country, so I hope I can remove that fear from the noble Lord's mind and from the minds of those who will read his remarks. There is no evidence at all that the chemical fertilisers at our disposal, even when used in large quantities, are harmful to human beings. There are no cases of illness due to eating some plant which has been grown by means of a particular chemical fertiliser. Incidentally, I know well the views of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on this subject.
I think Lord Douglas would agree that many of the statements he made were based on statements made in the United States of America. Those statements may or may not be correct, but I think that we cannot accept them as being accurate statements until we have proved them for ourselves and are certain of their validity under conditions in this country—which are obviously different from conditions in America. Lord Douglas was not primarily concerned with the effect of poisonous chemicals on their users. Nevertheless, I should like to refer to it because it is a matter of considerable public interest. I am sure your Lordships will agree that all our industry, including agriculture, must produce more if we are to maintain our present standard of living. One of the most important ways of doing this in agriculture is to reduce the losses due to disease, weeds and pests. The chemical attack on pests and diseases is only one method of control. The traditional practice of crop rotation and the breeding and use of resistant strains are also of the

645
utmost value in conserving our crops. But these traditional methods are not sufficient by themselves.
Poisonous substances of one kind and another have been safely used in agriculture for a long time. But the increasing use of chemicals and the appearance on the market of new chemical substances make it essential to provide against any new dangers which may arise from their application. Some of the most effective of all the new chemicals are those used for weed killing, and the powerful new insecticides. The use of these is highly dangerous to the workers handling them and there has been a small number of fatal accidents. The existence of these dangers has caused the Government to set up a Working Party, as the noble Lord has already stated, under the chairmanship of Professor Zuckerman. The Working Party did an excellent job in a very short time, and made a number of useful recommendations. Their Report has now been published. Some of the proposals would require legislation, and we are now considering that matter. But, as the spraying season starts at the end of March, the Minister of Agriculture decided that agreement about the use of protective measures for the men who handle these sprays was desirable in advance of legislation. At a conference in February, agreement was reached about necessary measures for the protection of the men working in the field or in the orchard.
Following other recommendations of the Working Party, all doctors have been informed about spraying areas and seasons, and have been supplied, through the B.M.A., with the information available on the possible ill effects of these sprays and their treatment. We are also taking other measures to put into effect the recommendations about instruction and research. We shall not relax our efforts until we have made this work as safe as possible for the men who use these poisonous weed-killers and insecticides. Professor Zuckerman has now been asked—I think this information will be interesting to your Lordships—to continue his investigations to cover the risk to consumers which may follow the use of poisonous chemicals on growing crops and in the storage of food. These inquiries are at an early stage, but the reconstituted Working Party held its
646
second meeting yesterday and it will complete its work as quickly as possible.
Insecticides are not used only on, growing crops. A great many are used on crops and food after they have been stored, and here we have to take the greatest care. In fumigation by the use of powerful gases, gases are chosen which, if they are used with proper care and in the right quantities, do not leave traces on the food or crops which are stored. The wise use of the proper gas or insecticide for this purpose depends on the technical competence of the people who do the disinfestation. My Department, together with the City and Guilds Institute of Technology, are arranging to provide education in the practice of pest control. We hope eventually that only workers with certificates of competence will be permitted to use the more poisonous chemicals, although, of course, the work has to be done until people are fully qualified. The matters with which I have been dealing up to now fall within they responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and not within the responsibility of the Ministry of Food. I hope it will be noticed as I go along how closely the Government Departments concerned work together, because I think that that is the real answer to the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, to our present administrative set-up. Apparently, he desires an entirely new organisation on the lines of the American Food and Drugs Administration. I hope that what I say will show that our present system works satisfactorily.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas, referred to my Department's responsibility for seeing that milk is safe as well as clean. I will mention briefly the use of chemicals for cleansing milking equipment, and the precautions which are taken for preventing those chemicals from contaminating milk. Various detergents are used for the cleaning of utensils and equipment, but those normally used cannot be regarded as poisonous chemicals. They are quite harmless. In any case, under the Milk and Dairies Regulations, any equipment so cleaned must be afterwards rinsed with clean water and finally sterilised by steam, boiling water or approved hypochlorite. If hypochlorites are used, all traces must be removed before the vessel or appliance again comes into contact with milk. That is important because most of the population drink milk.

647
It is, therefore, essential to see that these safeguards are applied.
I shall now turn to the far more difficult question, raised by the noble Lord and by other noble Lords, of the danger to health arising from the use of chemicals in the processing or storage of foodstuffs. But we must be quite clear about the meaning of this word "poisonous," because, while I do not think there is any misunderstanding here, a misunderstanding is possible elsewhere. It is obvious that a substance is poisonous in the ordinary sense of the word if death or suffering takes place soon after it has been eaten. This kind of poisoning can easily be tested by experiments, and therefore there is very little risk of that type of thing happening in connection with any foodstuffs. The long-term effects of small quantities of substances which are harmless in themselves are much more difficult to determine. What we really want to know is whether some of the substances now being used may have toxic effects if taken in small amounts over a long period of time. That is the question to which we are asking the scientists to address their minds.
It is quite clear, as I am sure noble Lords will recognise, that we cannot forbid the use of chemicals and say that no chemical shall be used in connection with food. These chemical aids are necessary in the storage, processing, packing and distribution of much of the food needed in modern conditions, particularly in large towns. They are essential to the feeding of our large urban populations; they would go short of food if those chemical aids were not available. Food chemistry has an essential part to play in feeding this country (an obvious instance is that we could not do without margarine), and its practical application should not be restricted if restrictions can be avoided. At the same time, everyone agrees with the noble Lord the mover of the motion, and other speakers who have supported him, that there are risks in the use of these new chemical substances, or substances put to new uses in connection with food. I should say here and now that the Government are very much alive to these risks, and to the paramount importance of doing everything possible to safeguard the public.
648
I should like also to tell the House what we are already doing or propose to do. Existing legislation, particularly the Food and Drugs Act of 1938, provides considerable safeguards, and the Orders made under that Act and under later Defence Regulations are also means of protecting the public from the use of harmful substances. The manufacturers and distributors of food have considerable responsibilities under the Food and Drugs Act for the quality of the food they supply, and the Ministers of Health and Food have power to make Regulations jointly. But we are not certain—I should like to emphasise this—that existing powers are adequate. We are therefore considering at this moment the amendment of the Food and Drugs Act, with a view to giving the responsible Ministers wider powers than they now possess.
In order to show that we have been active recently in one of the directions which I think the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, mentioned when he spoke of mineral oils, perhaps I may draw attention to two Orders that were made, one in 1947 and one in 1949. The Fluorine in Food Order, 1947, fixes the maximum amount of a particular chemical substance which can be legally used in food without danger to health. The Mineral Oil in Food Order, 1949, prohibits altogether the admixture of mineral oils. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas, described their harmful effects. Another example of Executive action is the Preservatives Regulations. These Regulations provide that no preservative, other than those which are declared to be safe on the best medical and scientific advice, may be used in food. The preservatives which can be used are defined, as are the quantities in which they may be used and the foods in which they can be included. A Committee is now considering how these Regulations can be brought up to date, and also whether regulations on similar lines should be applied to groups of substances used for other purposes, such as anti-oxidents, which are used to prevent fats from going rancid, and colouring matters. We want to see whether these Regulations can be applied to this wide field of foodstuffs in which anti-oxidents and colouring matters are used.

649
The real difficulties, as I have already pointed out, are not of an administrative kind. Our main difficulty is lack of scientific knowledge about the effect of the chemicals added to food, or used in its preparation, and lack of the scientific personnel required for the long process of experiments and research. Science and technology are advancing quickly. New substances and new methods are continually being offered to food manufacturers, and the real problem is how to establish that there is, in the long run, no risk of ill effects upon the health from the employment of these substances. An example which has been given by several speakers this afternoon is the use of agene in the preparation of flour for the baker. This process has been used for the last thirty years without any evidence of harmful effects on man. I think that fact ought to be made absolutely clear, because we do not want people to feel that they are being slowly poisoned by their bread. As the noble Lords have pointed out, experimental work has shown that agene-treated flour is harmful to dogs and to sonic other animals. And although there is no evidence that this chemical, when mixed with flour, is harmful to human beings, we do not want to take any risks, and we have achieved agreement with the flour millers to give up entirely the use of this substance. They have agreed to that step; that decision has been taken. But, of course, there are practical difficulties in discontinuing a technical process which has been used for a long time, and these are causing delay in giving effect to the decision which has been taken. I think it is obvious that we want to arrive at the best possible alternative, and that adaptations have to be made in plans, and so on and so forth, before the alternative chosen can be used in flour.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas took the view that all responsibility in this matter should rest with one Department, the Ministry of Health. We are satisfied, however, that the existing administrative arrangements between Departments concerned, to which I have already alluded, work smoothly and efficiently. There is no confusion of function or wasteful overlapping. We feel that there is no need for any change, because the present arrangements work so well. Let me just mention briefly the functions of the different Departments in relation to this matter. The Ministry of Agriculture is
650
clearly the Department best equipped to take responsibility for agricultural and horticultural operations. The Ministry of Food, in the course of its day-to-day activities, is in very close contact with the food trades. It is in a position to advise when called upon, and is in fact frequently asked for advice. I should like to say, in passing, that the relations between the Ministry of Food and the food trade are excellent, and that the Ministry of Food is getting constant information from the trade, and is obtaining useful medical and scientific advice, which the manufacturers require in relation to new substances that they desire to put into use. The Ministry of Food consults with the Health Departments and with the Medical Research Council, and of course with the food manufacturers' research associations, on all matters within their competence.
In my view it is quite right and proper that the Minister of Food should bear the main responsibility for the nature and quality of the food we eat. The Ministry of Food co-operates very closely with the Health Departments, both by contact between officials and through Standing Committees, and the Health Departments, in turn, are the arbiters on matters relating exclusively to health. Another example of the way the Food and Health Departments work together is the joint responsibility of the two organisations for the administration of the Food and Drugs Act. The Medical Research Council, which is of course an extremely important institution, is a completely independent source of authoritative scientific advice. All these bodies have worked together very happily and so far, I think, with complete success. Therefore, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, that there is any advantage in gathering all these responsibilities into one Department. I am sure that any big change would impair efficiency, and equally I am sure that it would be a mistake to try and follow the American pattern, because the system there has grown up under entirely different conditions from our system here. We cannot prohibit the use of all chemical substances except those which we can prove to be safe. There is a very wide range of substances which are at present untested but which are absolutely essential for the processing or preservation of foodstuffs. We must use our limited resources of scientific personnel to inquire into the

651
most urgent problems, and we should clearly achieve nothing if we tried to tackle at the same time a very large number of problems.
In this connection I should like to inform the House about an important new development. The Advisory Council on Scientific Policy reported last year that they had appointed a Committee on Toxic Substances in Consumer Goods, under the chairmanship of Professor Zuckerman. This Committee were asked to advise on the need for better control of the use of ingredients or processes potentially injurious to health used in the preparation of foods and a wide range of other consumer goods. The Committee's conclusions and recommendations have now been examined by the Medical Research Council and by the Government Departments concerned and the advice of the former, on the medical aspects, and of the latter, on the administrative and legal implications, has been considered by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. The Council are now about to submit their recommendations to the Lord President, who is the responsible Minister in these matters. Reference will be made to the recommendations in the Advisory Council's Annual Report which will appear by the end of this month. I should like to emphasise this because it means that very important decisions of policy are now before the Minister who is responsible for these matters in the present Government. I do hope that what I have said has satisfied your Lordships. The Government is well aware of the urgency of this problem. We are doing our utmost to safeguard the public in the light of existing scientific and medical knowledge, and we are trying to obtain the further knowledge that is needed before we can decide whether further action is desirable.
6.56 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I will not detain you for more than a few moments. In the first place, I should like to thank my noble friends Lord Hankey and Lord Teviot for the support that they have given me. I
652
should also like to thank my noble friend who has spoken on behalf of the Government, although I am not completely satisfied with his reply. He has said that the Government cannot forbid the use of chemicals, although we do not know whether those chemicals are harmless or otherwise. That is a position which I accept only with very great hesitation. Somehow or other, it seems to be assumed that this country would be unable to feed itself if the use of such chemicals were prohibited. I wonder how this country was able to feed itself a couple of generations ago, before the ingenuity of the chemists got to work upon this subject. Certainly we suffered from some greater inequality in the distribution of wealth, but I do not think there were any insuperable difficulties about supplying us with sufficient food.
The noble Earl has admitted that insufficient research has been devoted to this matter in this country. He has said that various researches have been conducted in the United States, and for that matter elsewhere, but that we cannot accept the results of those researches until we are able to prove the statements by fresh researches here. If that is the position, then it is high time that we were making more rapid progress. It may be that the present system of administration in this country works well. I do not doubt that for a single moment. But it does not cover all the ground which requires to be covered. That is the point which I wanted to make. I am very glad to see, from what the noble Earl has said, that the Government are taking an active interest in this matter, and that steps are being taken to provide a larger and better measure of protection to the public in regard to the foodstuffs which are being consumed. That being so, I am content for the moment to thank the noble Earl for the reply which he has given on behalf of the Government, and to beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.